SHARE
DETAILS
136 pages | | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-09768-0 | DOI 10.17226/13975
AUTHORS
BUY THIS BOOK
Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports
10% off the price of print titles
Email or social media notications of new titles related to your interests
Special offers and discounts
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
CONSULTANT
JOHN TURNER
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming
S UBJECT A REAS
Bridges, Other Structures, and Hydraulics and Hydrology and Soils, Geology, and Foundations
Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
Price $39.00
Project 20-5 (Topic 36-12)
ISSN 0547-5570
ISBN 0-309-09768-1
Library of Congress Control No. 2006925246
2006 Transportation Research Board
COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for
obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the
copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce
material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes.
Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be
used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit
Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or
practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document
for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment
of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the
material, request permission from CRP.
NOTICE
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation
Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National
Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Boards judgment that
the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect
to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and
to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and
with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research
agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as
appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the
Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical
committee according to procedures established and monitored by the
Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing
Board of the National Research Council.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Boards mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting,
the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and
practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical
excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research
results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Boards varied activities annually engage more
than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and
private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is
supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the
development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
FOREWORD
By Staff
Transportation
Research Board
PREFACE
Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence,
full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its
solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked,
and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and
engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with
problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community,
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsthrough the
mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Programauthorized the
Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-5, Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems, searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series,
Synthesis of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format,
without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report
in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures
found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems.
During the past 25 years, much knowledge and experience has been acquired by the engineering and construction industries on the use of rock-socketed shafts for support of transportation structures. This synthesis collected, reviewed, and organized the most salient
aspects of this knowledge and experience to present it in a form useful to foundation designers, researchers, contractors, and transportation officials. The objectives of this report were
to collect and summarize information on current practices pertaining to each step of the
design process, along with the limitations; identify emerging and promising technologies;
determine the principal challenges in advancing the state of the practice; and provide suggestions for future developments and improvements in the use and design of rock-socketed
shafts.
For this TRB synthesis report a literature review was conducted on all topics related to
drilled shaft in rock or intermediate geomaterials. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to the principal geotechnical and structural engineers of U.S. state and Canadian
provincial transportation agencies. Questions were grouped into the following categories:
use of rock-socketed shafts by the agency, evaluation of rock and intermediate geomaterials, design methods for axial loading, design methods for lateral loading, structural design,
construction, and field load and integrity testing.
John Turner, Professor of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report, under the guidance of a panel of experts in the subject area. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records
the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the
time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will
be added to that now at hand.
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background, 3
Problem Definition, 3
Scope and Objectives, 3
Methodology, 4
Organization of Synthesis, 4
Design Process, 5
CHAPTER TWO
SITE AND GEOMATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Scope, 8
Site Geology, 8
Field Investigations, 10
Geologic and Index Properties of Rock, 16
Engineering Properties of Rock, 20
Intermediate Geomaterials, 29
Summary, 31
33
CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN FOR AXIAL LOADING
Scope, 33
Relationship to Geomaterial Characterization, 33
Load Transfer Behavior of Rock Sockets, 33
Capacity Under Axial Loading, 37
Axial Load-Displacement Behavior, 47
Current AASHTO Practice, 51
Summary, 52
54
CHAPTER FOUR
DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOADING
Scope, 54
Design Process, 54
Rock-Socketed Foundations for Lateral Loading, 54
Analytical Methods, 55
Structural Issues, 66
Summary, 70
71
CHAPTER FIVE
CONSTRUCTION AND FIELD TESTING
Scope, 71
Construction of Rock Sockets, 71
Field Load Testing, 74
Constructability, Inspection, and Quality Assurance, 88
Examples of Difficult Geologic Conditions, 93
Summary, 95
97
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS
Site and Geomaterial Characterization, 97
Design for Axial Load, 98
Design for Lateral Load, 99
Load Testing, 99
Constructability and Inspection, 99
Research Needed to Advance State of Practice, 100
102
EQUATION SYMBOLS
104
REFERENCES
110
APPENDIX A
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
111
APPENDIX B
ROCK-SOCKETED SHAFTS
FOR HIGHWAY STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS
SUMMARY Drilled shafts are one of the few structural foundation types that can be built directly into
rock. Foundations in rock are attractive because high load carrying capacities are possible
and foundation displacements can be limited to acceptable levels more readily than through
foundations in soil. Over the past 25 years, much knowledge and experience has been gained
by the engineering and construction industries with the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts
for support of transportation structures. The goal of this synthesis is to collect, review, and
organize the most salient aspects of that knowledge and experience and to present it in a form
that is useful to foundation designers, researchers, contractors, and transportation officials.
Challenges faced by foundation designers when considering rock-socketed drilled shafts
include: (1) characterizing the nature of the rock mass or intermediate geomaterial, (2) selecting appropriate design methods for analysis of axial load carrying capacity and axial loaddeformation response, (3) analysis and design for lateral loading, and (4) assessing issues of
constructability and their influence on foundation performance and costs. Each of these issues
is considered in the synthesis within the context of the overall foundation design process as
practiced by transportation agencies.
A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to the principal geotechnical and
structural engineers of 52 U.S. transportation agencies (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) and Canadian provinces. The purpose of the survey was to define the current state of practice for rock-socketed drilled shafts. Thirty-two U.S. transportation agencies
and one Canadian provincial transportation agency responded to the questionnaire.
Innovative methods for field load testing of drilled shafts, including the Osterberg Cell
and Statnamic methods, have contributed to advances in design and construction of shafts in
rock. Load testing is shown to be an integral part of several state department of transportation programs that have led to increased use of rock-socketed drilled shafts and improved design methods. These and other load testing methods for rock-socketed shafts are reviewed.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
PROBLEM DEFINITION
4
P
M
H
SOIL
ROCK
Thirty-two U.S. and one Canadian provincial transportation agencies responded to the questionnaire, completely or
in part. A list of responding agencies and a summary of responses to the questions are given in Appendix A. The questionnaire was also sent to several consulting firms and drilled
shaft contractors. Two contractors responded to the survey.
Based on responses to the questionnaire, selected state
agency personnel and contractors were interviewed.
ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS
is a summary of the principal findings of this study and presents steps that can lead to more effective use, design, and
construction of rock sockets for bridge foundations. In each
chapter, significant findings derived from the survey are identified and discussed. Appendix A provides a list of survey respondents and Appendix B presents the questionnaire and a
compilation of the responses to each question.
DESIGN PROCESS
Bridge obtains site data from the regional office and develops a preliminary bridge plan (or other structure) adequate
for GD to locate borings in preparation for final design of the
structure. Bridge would also provide the following information to GD to support development of the preliminary foundation design:
An informal communication/report is produced by the Geotechnical Division (GD) at the request of the Bridge and
Bridge and Structures Office
(Bridge) requests conceptual
foundation recommendations
from Geotechnical Division
(GD)
GD provides conceptual
foundation recommendations
to Bridge
GD provides preliminary
foundation design
recommendations
iterate
GD performs final
geotechnical design and
provides final geotechnical
report for the structure
needed, p-y curve data and soil spring data for seismic modeling, seismic site characterization and estimated ground
acceleration, and recommendations to address known constructability issues. A description of subsurface conditions
and a preliminary subsurface profile would also be provided
at this stage; however, detailed boring logs and laboratory
test data would usually not be provided.
Bridge uses the preliminary foundation design recommendations provided by GD to perform structural modeling of the
foundation system and superstructure. Through this modeling, Bridge determines and distributes the loads within the
structure for all appropriate load cases, factors the loads as
appropriate, and sizes the foundations using foundation nominal resistances and resistance factors provided by GD. Constructability and construction staging needs continue to be
investigated during this phase. Bridge provides the following
feedback to GD to allow them to check their preliminary
foundation design and produce the Final Geotechnical Report for the structure:
FIGURE 3 Design and construction process for drilled shaft foundations (adapted from Paikowsky et al. 2004a). QA/QC =
quality assurance/quality control; NDT/NDE = nondestructive testing/evaluations.
7
Final Structural Modeling and Development
of Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
CHAPTER TWO
SCOPE
SITE GEOLOGY
This chapter describes site investigation methods, classification systems for intact rock and rock masses, and field and
laboratory tests used to determine rock engineering properties. The focus is limited to information relevant to the design
and construction of rock-socketed drilled shafts. Several
references are available that provide guidance on strategies
and methods of site characterization and material property
evaluation for geotechnical practice, with a focus on transportation facilities. These include the FHWA Manual on
Subsurface Investigations (Mayne et al. 2001), Evaluation
of Soil and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 5 (Sabatini et al. 2002), and the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988). In addition, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has published several manuals relevant to this topic (Rock Testing Handbook 1993; Rock
Foundations 1994; Geotechnical Investigations 2001).
Understanding the geologic environment provides information used to plan the more detailed, subsequent phases of exploration. Site geology refers to the physiography, surficial
geology, and bedrock geology of the site. The starting point
is a thorough survey of existing information. In many cases,
existing data will enable identification of geologic features
that will determine the feasibility of rock-socketed foundations or will have a major impact on their design or construction. The amount and quality of information gathered
can then be used to establish the type and extent of additional
data that will be required. General knowledge of the site
geology is required in the first phase of the design process
outlined in chapter one, Conceptual Bridge Foundation
Design, to establish anticipated site conditions, feasibility of
rock sockets, and conceptual evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards.
The purpose of site characterization is to obtain the information required to develop a model of the site geology and to
establish the required engineering properties of the geomaterials. The information obtained is used for two general purposes:
(1) analysis of capacity and load-deformation response, which
determines the foundation overall design; and (2) construction
feasibility, costs, and planning. Once the site for a bridge or
other transportation structure has been established, all aspects
of the site and material characterization program are focused
on the soil and rock conditions as they exist at that site.
Geologic conditions and rock mass characteristics can exhibit
such a wide degree of variability that it is not possible to establish a single standardized approach. The scope of the program
is determined by the level of complexity of the site geology,
foundation loading characteristics, size, configuration, and
structural performance of the bridge, acceptable levels of risk,
experience of the agency, and other factors. Some of the information needed to establish the scope of site characterization
may only be known following a preliminary study of the site.
Geologic maps are used to transmit information about geologic features at or near the earths surface. Maps are prepared at various scales and for a variety of purposes (Varnes
1974). A geologic map may be prepared to depict the general
geology of a large region, for example bedrock geology of an
entire state, or it may cover a relatively small area and contain detailed information about specific geologic features, for
example engineering geology of a single quadrangle. A good
starting point is the geologic map of the state. These maps are
produced at a scale that makes it possible to identify the
underlying bedrock formations in a general area. Often this
is sufficient to know immediately whether a bridge is located
where bedrock conditions are favorable or unfavorable for
foundations in rock, or even whether bedrock exists at reasonable depth. Most state DOT geotechnical engineers and
geologists with experience have familiarity with the geology
of their state and incorporate this step unconsciously. The
next logical step is to determine if more detailed geologic
maps or reports are available for the particular area in which
10
NCHRP Synthesis 357: Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects (Sirles 2006) provides a comprehensive
overview of the topic and additional survey data relevant to
this study. Table 1 identifies the primary and secondary
methods used to investigate selected subsurface objectives.
The table is an abridged version from the Sirles report (2006)
in which only objectives pertaining to foundation investigations are included. The survey of transportation agencies
for this project identified seismic as the most widely used
geophysical methods and mapping rock as the most widely
used application of geophysics. Mapping karst or other voids
was also identified as a major objective.
FIGURE 4 Bridge site with surface exposures of foundation
rock.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
Field methods for characterization of rock include geophysical methods, rock core drilling, and in situ testing. These
activities normally are carried out during the Preliminary
Foundation Design phase of the design process as described
in chapter one, and would be used to provide a description
of subsurface conditions and a preliminary subsurface profile. The detailed results of field investigations, including
detailed boring logs, in situ testing results, and interpretation, would be included in the final geotechnical report prepared during the Final Foundation Design phase of Figure 2.
Geophysical Methods
Geophysical methods, in conjunction with borings, can provide useful information in areas underlain by rock. The most
common application of geophysics is to determine depth to
bedrock. When correlated with data from borings, geophysical methods provide depth to bedrock information over a
large area, eliminating some of the uncertainty associated
with interpolations of bedrock depths for locations between
borings.
Geophysical methods are based on measuring the transmission of electromagnetic or mechanical waves through the
ground. Signal transmission is affected by differences in the
physical properties of geomaterials. By transmitting electromagnetic or seismic signals and measuring their arrival at
other locations, changes in material properties can be located.
In some cases, the material properties can also be quantified.
For foundation site characterization, geophysical methods can
be placed into two general categories, those conducted from
the ground surface (noninvasive) and those conducted in
boreholes (invasive). When grouped according to method, the
six major categories are: seismic, electromagnetic, electrical,
magnetic, radar, and gravity. Basic descriptions of geophysical methods and their application to geotechnical engineering
are given by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Geophysical Exploration . . . . 1995) and Mayne et al. (2001).
(1 2 v ) (1 + vd ) 2
Vp
(1 vd )
(1)
(2)
in which Ed = small-strain dynamic modulus, vd = smallstrain dynamic Poissons ratio, = mass density, Vs = shear
wave velocity, and Vp = compressional wave velocity. Eqs. 1
and 2 are based on the assumption that the rock mass is a
homogeneous, isotropic, elastic solid. Because most rock
masses depart significantly from this assumption, elastic
modulus values calculated from seismic wave velocities are
normally larger than values measured in static field load
11
TABLE 1
GEOPHYSICAL METHODS AND APPLICATIONS (after Sirles 2006)
Techniques
Magnetics
Other
Gravity
EM34Terrain Conductivity
Electrical Resistivity/P
P
P
Electrical
TimeDomain EM Soundings
EM31Terrain Conductivity
Shear Wave
P
P
Seismic Tomography
Seismic Reflection
Investigation Objectives
Bedrock Depth
Rippability
Lateral & Vertical
Variation in Rock or Soil
Strength
Location of Faults and
Fracture Zones
Karst Features
Seismic Refraction
Methods
Electromagnetic
Seismic
S
P
S
P
Notes: P = primary; S = secondary; blank = techniques should not be used; EM = electromagnetic; SASW = spectral analysis of surface
waves; MASW = multi-channel analysis of surface waves.
tests, such as plate bearing or pressure chamber tests. Alternatively, a method that correlates rock mass modulus to shear
wave frequency has been shown to provide a reasonable firstorder estimate of modulus. Figure 6 shows the relationship
between in situ modulus and shear wave frequency using a
hammer seismograph, as described by Bieniawski (1978).
The data can be fit to a straight line by
EM = 0.054f 9.2
(3)
12
(a)
(b)
stratigraphy observed in borings, particularly for top-ofrock profile. Figure 8 shows a resistivity tomogram at one
of the bridge pier sites, in which the top-of-rock profile is
well-defined by the dark layer. Inclusions of rock in the
overlying soil are also clearly defined. This technology
should be considered for any site where a rock surface profile is required and would provide valuable information for
both design and construction of rock-socketed foundations. Table 1 identifies electrical resistivity tomography
profiling as a primary method for investigating karstic conditions and as a secondary method for measuring depth to
bedrock.
Other geophysical methods have potential for rock sites,
but have yet to be exploited specifically for applications to
foundations in rock. These include downhole and crosshole
seismic methods. Downhole seismic p-wave is based on measuring arrival times in boreholes of seismic waves generated
at the ground surface. Crosshole seismic involves measuring travel times of seismic waves between boreholes. Both
methods provide depth to rock, and s-wave velocities,
dynamic shear modulus, small-strain Youngs modulus, and
Poissons ratio. Crosshole tomography is based on computer
analysis of crosshole seismic or resistivity data to produce a
3-dimensional (3-D) representation of subsurface conditions.
These techniques are more expensive and require specialized
expertise for data interpretation, but may be cost-effective for
large structures where the detailed information enables a
more cost-effective design or eliminates uncertainty that may
otherwise lead to construction cost overruns.
All geophysical methods have limitations associated with
the underlying physics, the equipment, and the individuals
running the test and providing interpretation of the data. The
study by Sirles (2006) includes several informative case histories from state DOTs of both successful and unsuccessful
projects. The single case history related to a bridge foundation investigation is one of a failure to provide accurate
Current meter
Battery
Volt meter
P1
C1
Spacing, A
P2
V
Spacing, A
Spacing, A
C2
13
Resistivity Test #7
West
Depth (feet)
East
-10
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Distance (feet)
200
100
50
25
12
Resistivity (Ohm-feet)
Borings provide the most direct evidence of subsurface conditions at a specific site. They furnish detailed information
on stratigraphy and samples of soil and rock from which
engineering properties are determined. Borings also provide
the means for conducting in situ tests, installation of instrumentation, and observing groundwater conditions. Conventional soil boring and testing equipment is used to drill
through overlying soil deposits and to determine depth to
bedrock. Once encountered, the most widely used technique
for investigating rock for the purpose of foundation design
is core drilling. Samples are obtained for rock classification
and determining rock properties important to both design and
construction. A core sample can be examined physically and
tested, providing information that is hard to obtain by any
other methods.
Rock core drilling is accomplished using rotary drill
equipment, usually the same truck- or skid-mounted rigs
used for soil drilling and sampling. A hollow coring tube
equipped with a diamond or tungstencarbide cutting bit is
14
the discontinuity (strike and dip) can be determined accurately (Goodman 1976). A method used with wire line
drilling involves making an impression of the core in clay.
The combination of inclined and oriented coring techniques
can provide an effective tool for characterizing orientation of
discontinuities in complexly fractured rock masses. Rock
core orienting methods are covered in more detail in the
AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations (1988) and
are also reviewed and compared with borehole televiewer
methods by Eliassen et al. (2005).
Depth and Spacing of Boreholes
TABLE 2
RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY OF BORINGS,
DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS FOR
BRIDGES, UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION
Redundancy
Condition
Single-column, single
shaft foundations
Redundant, multipleshaft foundations
Redundant, multipleshaft foundations
Redundant, multipleshaft foundations
Shaft
Diameter
(m)
All
>1.8 m
(6 ft)
1.21.8 m
(46 ft)
<1.2 m
(4 ft)
Guideline
One boring per
shaft
One boring per
shaft
One boring per
two shafts
One boring per
four shafts
15
16
TABLE 3
ROCK GROUPS AND TYPES
Intrusive
(coarse-grained)
Granite
Syenite
Diorite
Diabase
Gabbro
Peridotite
Pegmatite
Clastic (sediment)
Shale
Mudstone
Claystone
Siltstone
Conglomerate
Limestone, oolitic
Igneous
Extrusive
(fine-grained)
Rhyolite
Trachyte
Andesite
Basalt
Sedimentary
(chemically formed)
Limestone
Dolomite
Gypsum
Halite
Diameter (mm)
>4.75
2.004.75
0.4252.00
0.0750.425
<0.075
Subangular
Subrounded
Rounded
Well-rounded
Nonfoliated
Quartzite
Amphibolite
Marble
Hornfels
Characteristic
Grain sizes are greater than popcorn kernels
Individual grains can be easily distinguished by eye
Individual grains can be distinguished by eye
Individual grains can be distinguished with difficulty
Individual grains cannot be distinguished by unaided eye
TABLE 5
TERMS TO DESCRIBE GRAIN SHAPE (for sedimentary rocks)
Description
Angular
(organic remains)
Chalk
Coquina
Lignite
Coal
Metamorphic
Foliated
Slate
Phyllite
Schist
Gneiss
TABLE 4
TERMS TO DESCRIBE GRAIN SIZE OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK
Description
Very coarse grained
Coarse grained
Medium grained
Fine grained
Very fine grained
Pyroclastic
Obsidian
Pumice
Tuff
Characteristic
Showing very little evidence of wear. Grain edges and corners are sharp. Secondary
corners are numerous and sharp.
Showing definite effects of wear. Grain edges and corners are slightly rounded off.
Secondary corners are slightly less numerous and slightly less sharp than in angular
grains.
Showing considerable wear. Grain edges and corners are rounded to smooth curves.
Secondary corners are reduced greatly in number and highly rounded.
Showing extreme wear. Grain edges and corners are smoothed off to broad curves.
Secondary corners are few in number and rounded.
Completely worn. Grain edges and corners are not present. No secondary edges or
corners are present.
17
TABLE 6
TERMS TO DESCRIBE STRATUM
THICKNESS
Descriptive Term
Very thickly bedded
Thickly bedded
Thinly bedded
Very thinly bedded
Laminated
Thinly laminated
Stratum Thickness
>1 m
0.5 to 1.0 m
50 mm to 500 mm
10 mm to 50 mm
2.5 mm to 10 mm
<2.5 mm
18
Discontinuity Descriptors
A discontinuity is defined as any surface across which any mechanical property of a rock mass is discontinuous. Discontinuity descriptors are summarized in Figure 11 (Key), items a
through g. Types of discontinuities include faults, joints, shear
planes, foliation, veins, and bedding. Orientation refers to the
measured dip and dip direction of the surface (or dip and
strike). Dip is defined as the maximum angle of the plane to
the horizontal and dip direction (strike) is the direction of the
horizontal trace of the line of dip measured clockwise from
north, in degrees. Determination of dip and dip direction from
core samples is possible using oriented coring techniques,
borehole televiewers, downhole cameras, or other devices
capable of establishing orientation of the discontinuity relative
Infilling
19
L = 250 mm
RQD =
L=0
HIGHLY WEATHERED
DOES NOT MEET
SOUNDNESS REQUIREMENT
L=0
CENTER LINE
PIECES < 4"
& HIGHLY WEATHERED
Spacing is the perpendicular distance between adjacent discontinuities. Spacing has a major influence on seepage and
mechanical behavior and can be described using the terms in
Figure 11 (Key). Persistence refers to the continuous length
or area of a discontinuity and requires field exposures for its
determination.
The number of sets of intersecting discontinuities has a
major effect on RMS and compressibility. As the number of
sets increases, the extent to which the rock mass can deform
without failure of intact rock also increases. Field mapping
or observations made in exploratory pits or large excavations
provide the best opportunity to map multiple sets of discontinuities. Block size and shape is determined by spacing, persistence, and number of intersecting sets of discontinuities.
Descriptive terms include blocky, tabular, shattered, and
columnar, while size ranges from small (<0.0002 m3) to very
large (>8 m3).
Seepage
L = 190 mm
L=0
< 4"
MECHANICAL
BREAK CAUSED
BY DRILLING
PROCESS
RQD =
LENGTH OF SOUND
> 100 mm
PIECES
TOTAL CORE RUN LENGTH
CORE
L = 200 mm
L=0
NO RECOVERY
20
RQD
90100
7590
5075
2550
<25
Intact rock refers to the consolidated and cemented assemblage of mineral particles forming the rock material, excluding the effects of macro-scale discontinuities such as
joints, bedding planes, minor faults, or other recurrent planar fractures. The term rock mass is used to describe the system comprised of intact rock and discontinuities. The characteristics of intact rock are determined from hand
specimens or rock core. Properties of intact rock required for
proper characterization of the rock mass and that are relevant to foundation design include strength and deformability. For some rock types, the potential for degradation on exposure to atmospheric conditions may also need to be
evaluated. Some design methods incorporate properties of
intact rock directly; for example, correlations between ultimate unit side resistance and uniaxial compressive strength.
However, most analytical treatments of foundation capacity
and load-deformation response incorporate the strength and
deformability of intact rock into rock mass models that also
TABLE 7
COMMON LABORATORY TESTS FOR INTACT ROCK
Test
Category
Uniaxial
compression
Split tensile
Point load
strength
Direct shear
Strengthdeformation
Durability
Comments
Primary test for strength and deformability
of intact rock; input parameter for rock mass
classification systems
Splitting tensile strength of a rock disk under
a compression line load
Index test for rock strength classification;
can be performed in field on core pieces
unsuitable for lab testing
Applies to intact rock strength or to shear
strength along planes of discontinuities,
including rockconcrete interface
Youngs modulus from axial stressstrain
curve; Poissons ratio can also be
determined
Index test to quantify the durability of weak
rocks under wetting and drying cycles with
abrasion
21
(4)
(5)
C is a correlation factor that should be established on a sitespecific basis by conducting a limited number of uniaxial
compression tests on prepared core samples. If a site-specific
value of C is not available, the ASTM Standard recommends
approximate values based on core diameter. For a 54 mm
core (NX core size), the recommended value of C is 24. The
principal advantages of the point load test are that it can
be carried out quickly and inexpensively in the field at the
site of drilling and that tests can be conducted on irregular
specimens without the preparation required for uniaxial compression tests.
Split tensile strength (qt) of rock (ASTM D4644) is determined by compressing a cylindrical disk under a compressive
line load. Split tensile strength has been correlated with unit
side resistance; for example, by McVay et al. (1992) for
drilled shafts in Florida limestone.
Direct shear testing is applicable to determination of the
MohrCoulomb shear strength parameters cohesion, c, and
friction angle, , of discontinuity surfaces in rock (ASTM
D5607). Shear strength of discontinuities may govern capacity in certain conditions; for example, base capacity of socketed foundations when one or two intersecting joint sets are
oriented at an intermediate angle to horizontal. The other notable application of this test is in simulating the shear
strength at the rockconcrete interface for evaluation of side
resistance of socketed shafts under axial loading. However,
for this application, the constant normal stiffness (CNS) direct shear test described by Johnston et al. (1987) is more applicable. Instead of a constant normal load, normal force is
applied through a spring that increases or decreases the applied force in proportion to the magnitude of normal displacement (dilation). Dilatancy of the interface is a major
factor controlling strength and stiffness of socketed shafts
under axial load.
The slake durability test (ASTM D4644) provides an index
for identifying rocks that will weather and degrade rapidly.
The test is appropriate for argillaceous sedimentary rocks
(mudstone, shale, clayshales) or any weak rock. Representative rock fragments are placed in a wire mesh drum and dried
in an oven to constant weight. The drum is partially submerged in water and rotated at 20 revolutions per minute for
a period of 10 min. The drum and its contents are then dried a
second time and the loss of weight is recorded. The test cycle
is repeated a second time and the slake durability index, ID, is
calculated as the ratio (reported as a percentage) of final to initial dry weights of the sample. Rocks with ID < 60 are considered prone to rapid degradation and may indicate a susceptibility to degradation of the borehole wall when water is
introduced during drilling, potentially leading to formation of
a smear zone. Hassan and ONeill (1997) define the smear
zone as a layer of soil-like material along the socket wall and
demonstrate that smearing can have a significantly negative
effect on side load transfer of shafts in argillaceous rock.
22
In Situ Tests for Rock
TABLE 8
IN SITU TESTS WITH APPLICATIONS TO ROCK-SOCKET DESIGN
Method
Pressuremeter
(includes devices
referred to as
rock dilatometer)
Procedure
Pressuremeter is lowered to the
test elevation in a prebored
hole; flexible membrane of
probe is expanded exerting a
uniform pressure on the
sidewalls of the borehole
Jacks exert a unidirectional
pressure to the walls of a
borehole by means of two
opposed curved steel platens
Rock Properties
Rock mass modulus;
rock mass strength
in weak rocks
ASTM D4719
Limitations/Remarks
Test affects a small area of rock
mass; depending on joint
spacing, may or may not
represent mass behavior; limited
to soft or weak rocks
Texas cone
penetration test
Correlated to
compressive strength
of weak rocks
encountered in
Texas and Oklahoma
Borehole jack
Notes: Adapted from Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 (Sabatini et al. 2002).
TCPT = Texas Cone Penetration Test.
23
An example of an in situ test that is used in a specific region of the country is the Texas Cone Penetration Test
(TCPT). A 76-mm-diameter solid steel cone is driven by a
77 kg (170 lb) drop hammer. The number of blows required
to drive 300 mm (12 in.) is recorded and the results are given
in one of two ways: (1) number of blows per 300 mm of penetration or TCPT N-value, or (2) the depth of penetration per
100 blows, referred to as the penetration resistance or PR.
The Texas and Oklahoma DOTs use empirical correlations
between the TCPT parameters and drilled shaft side and base
resistances in soil and soft rock. The test procedure and
correlations are available in the Texas DOT Geotechnical
Manual, which can be accessed online. Some researchers
have developed empirical correlations between TCPT measurements and properties of soft rock. For example, Cavusoglu et al. (2004) show correlations between compressive
strength of upper Cretaceous formation clay shales (UU triaxial tests) and limestone (unconfined compression) and PR
measurements conducted for Texas DOT projects. The correlations are highly formation-dependent and exhibit a high
degree of scatter, but provide first order estimates of rock
strength based on TCPT resistance in formations where sample recovery is otherwise difficult.
In addition to the tests identified as being applicable to
rock, it is common practice to use in situ tests for soil to
define the contact boundary between soil and rock. Of the
agencies surveyed, 21 reported using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and 3 reported using the Cone Penetration
Test (CPT) to define the top-of-rock elevation. Refusal of
the SPT or CPT penetration is the method most often used to
identify rock. Limitations of this approach include the possibility of mistaking cobbles or boulders for the top-of-rock
and the lack of consistency in SPT blowcounts in weak or
weathered rock.
Six states reported using the SPT in soft or weak rock to
obtain rock properties (unconfined compressive strength) or
for correlating SPT N-values directly to design parameters,
principally unit side resistance. For example, the Colorado
SPT-Based Method is used by the Colorado DOT to establish design values of both unit side resistance and base resistance for shafts socketed into claystones when the material
cannot be sampled in a way that provides intact core specimens adequate for laboratory uniaxial compression tests
(Abu-Hejleh et al. 2003). ONeill and Reese (1999) correlate
unit side resistance with N-values for shafts in cohesionless
IGMs, defined as materials with N > 50. Direct correlations
between design parameters and N values are considered further in chapter three.
RQD J r
J
w
Jn
J a SRF
where
RQD = rock quality designation,
Jn = joint set number,
Jr = joint roughness number,
Ja = joint alteration number,
Jw = joint water reduction factor, and
SRF = stress reduction factor.
(6)
24
TABLE 9
GEOMECHANICS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR DETERMINATION OF ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)
2
3
4
15
1
<25
3
<60 mm
5
<1
0
>0.5
stress
General
conditions
Rating
Strike and dip
orientations
Ratings
RMR
Class Number
Description
Foundations
Completely dry
Damp
15
10
7
B. Rating Adjustment for Joint Orientations
Very
Favorable
Fair
favorable
2
7
0
C. Rock Mass Classes Determined from Total Ratings
100 to 81
80 to 61
60 to 41
I
II
III
Very good
rock
Good rock
Fair rock
(7)
RQD Jr
Jn
Ja
Wet
(8)
Dripping
Flowing
Unfavorable
15
Very
Unfavorable
25
40 to 21
IV
<20
V
Poor rock
GSI = 9LogeQ' + 44
(9)
Shear Strength
Geotechnical evaluation of foundation ultimate capacity under axial and lateral loading is calculated on the basis of shear
strength along assumed failure surfaces in the rock or at the
concreterock interface. Depending on the failure mode, the
strength may need to be defined at one of three levels: (1) intact rock, (2) along a discontinuity, and (3) representative of
a highly fractured rock mass. Figure 14 illustrates these cases
for a socketed foundation in rock. For example, bearing
25
TABLE 10
JOINT PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE Q'
1. No. of Sets of Discontinuities = Jn
Massive
0.5
One set
2
Two sets
4
Three sets
9
Four or more sets
15
Crushed rock
20
2. Roughness of Discontinuities = Jr
Noncontinuous joints
4
Rough, wavy
3
Smooth, wavy
2
Rough, planar
1.5
Smooth, planar
1
Slick and planar
0.5
Filled discontinuities
1
*Note: Add +1 if mean joint spacing > 3 m. Modified from Barton et al. (1974).
For each of the three cases, shear strength may be expressed within the framework of the MohrCoulomb failure
criterion, where shear strength () is given by
(10)
in which c' = effective stress cohesion intercept, ' = effective stress angle of friction, and ' = effective normal stress
on the failure plane. Evaluation of shear strength for each of
the three cases is summarized as follows.
For intact rock the parameters c' and ' can be determined
from laboratory triaxial shear tests on specimens prepared
from core samples. Triaxial testing procedures are given by
ASTM D2664 and AASHTO T226. The survey of state
DOTs indicates that triaxial testing is not used routinely. The
qu = 2c tan (45 + 12 )
(11)
Shear failure
along joint
26
1' = 3' + qu mb 3 + s
qu
(12)
where
'1 and '3 = major and minor principal effective stresses,
respectively;
qu = uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock;
and
mb, s, and a are empirically determined strength parameters for the rock mass.
The value of the constant m for intact rock is denoted by
mi and can be estimated from Table 11. Hoek and Brown
(13)
GSI 100
s = exp
9 3D
(14)
a=
GSI
20
1 1 15
+ e
e 3
2 6
(15)
TABLE 11
VALUES OF THE CONSTANT mi BY ROCK GROUP (Hoek et al. 1995)
Rock
Type
Class
Group
Clastic
Texture
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Very fine
Conglomerate
(22)
Sandstone
19
Siltstone
9
Claystone
4
Sedimentary
<------------
Graywacke -------------->
(18)
<--------------- Chalk ----------------->
7
Organic
Non-clastic
Carbonate
Breccia
(20)
Metamorphic
Chemical
Micritic
limestone
8
Gypstone
16
Anhydrite
13
Non-foliated
Marble
9
Hornfels
(19)
Quartzite
24
Slightly foliated
Migmatite
(30)
Amphibolite
31
Mylonites
(6)
Foliated*
Gneiss
33
Schists
(10)
Phyllites
(10)
Slate
9
Granite
33
Rhyolite
(16)
Obsidian
(19)
Granodiorite
(30)
Dacite
(17)
Diorite
(28)
An desite
19
Light
Igneous
Sparitic
limestone
(10)
Dark
Gabbro
27
Dolerite
(19)
Basalt
(17)
Breccia
(18)
Tuff
(15)
Norite
22
Extrusive pyroclastic type
Agglomerate
(20)
*These values are for intact rock specimens tested normal to foliation. The value of mi will be significantly different if failure occurs
along a foliation plane.
Note: Values in parentheses are estimates.
27
6amb ( s + mb '3n )
' = sin 1
a 1
(
(
)
)
2 1 + a 2 + a + 6amb ( s + mb '3n )
a 1
c' =
(1 + a ) ( 2 + a ) 1 + 6amb ( s + mb '3n )
(1 + a ) ( 2 + a )
a 1
(16)
a 1
(17)
28
TABLE 12
EMPIRICAL METHODS FOR ESTIMATING ROCK MASS MODULUS
Expression
Notes/Remarks
Reference
1. EM = ER[0.0231(RQD) 1.32]
Bieniawski (1978)
Kulhawy (1978)
3. E = E 0.1 +
M
R
RMR
1150 11 .4RMR
6. EM (GPa) = 25 log10 Q
Adjustment to Serafim
and Pereira to account for
rocks with qu < 100 MPa;
note qu in MPa
4. E M (GPa ) = 10
RMR 10
40
7. E (GPa ) = 1 D
M
2
E M (GPa ) = 1
qu
10
100
D
10
2
GSI 10
40
GSI 10
40
GSI
8. E = E R e 21.7
M
100
Notes: ER = intact rock modulus, EM = equivalent rock mass modulus, RQD = rock quality designation, RMR =
rock mass rating, Q = NGI rating of rock mass, GSI = geological strength index, qu = uniaxial compressive strength.
jack test. At least three other states using PMT for rock did
not respond to the survey. The principal limitation of in situ
testing is whether the volume of rock being tested is representative of the in situ rock mass. Factors such as degree of rock
disturbance, anisotropy, and spacing of discontinuities relative
to the dimensions of the apparatus will determine the degree
to which test results represent the response of rock mass to
foundation loading. As noted earlier in this chapter, rock mass
modulus measured by pressuremeter shows varying levels of
agreement with other in situ testing methods. The full range of
application and limitations of PMTs for rock mass modulus
and its application to rock-socket design have yet to be determined. Correlation equations for rock mass modulus have
evolved over the years as illustrated by the relationships summarized in Table 12. Correlations are attractive because they
are based on more easily measured properties of intact rock
and rock mass indexes, but caution must be exercised because
most of the correlations were developed specifically for applications to tunneling. Calibration studies aimed at the application of correlation equations for rock mass modulus to loaddeformation analysis of rock-socketed foundations are largely
lacking at the present time. Studies by Littlechild et al. (2000)
and Liang and Yang (2006) are exceptions and illustrate the
type of additional work that is needed.
TABLE 13
ESTIMATION OF MODULUS RATIO (EM /ER)
BASED ON RQD (ONeill et al. 1996)
RQD (percent)
100
70
50
20
EM/ER
Closed Joints
Open Joints
1.00
0.60
0.70
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.05
29
Bieniawski (1978)
Serafim and Pereira (1983)
Ironton-Russell
Regression
values. A low-strain modulus derived from downhole seismic measurements was used as a reasonable upper-bound
check on the rock mass modulus. The modulus of intact rock
from laboratory uniaxial compression tests on core samples
is consistent with the observation of Heuze (1980) that field
rock mass modulus values range from 20% to 60% of intact
rock modulus and serve as an additional upper-bound check.
INTERMEDIATE GEOMATERIALS
30
manner as coarse-grained (cohesionless) soils. They are assumed to respond to loading by rapid dissipation of excess
pore water pressure (fully drained response) and are analyzed
within the context of effective stress. For strength analysis,
cohesionless IGMs are characterized in terms of the effective
stress angle of friction '. It should be noted that some
empirical correlations that apply to cohesionless soils, such
as friction angle estimated from SPT N-values, may not be
applicable to cohesionless IGMs. Specific approaches for
estimating design parameters of shafts in cohesionless IGM
are covered in chapter three.
The definition of cohesive IGMs given earlier is based
on a single index, the unconfined compressive strength. Although this categorization may be useful to identify materials falling into a defined range of intact strength, it does
not necessarily provide the distinction between soil and
rock most relevant to behavior of drilled shafts. To illustrate, consider Figure 17 from Kulhawy and Phoon (1993).
This figure shows the relationship between unit side resistance determined from field load tests on drilled shafts and
one-half of the unconfined compressive strength. Both parameters are normalized by atmospheric pressure pa. Two
categories of load tests were defined; those conducted on
shafts in fine-grained soils (clay) and those in rock. Kulhawy and Phoon relied on the judgment of the original
authors and the database compilers to establish whether the
material was soil or rock. For convenience, the range of
normalized strength that defines cohesive IGM is superimposed on Figure 17. It can be seen that the soil and rock data
constitute apparently different populations, including over
the range of strength that defines cohesive IGM. For purposes of drilled shaft side resistance, therefore, the classification of IGM does not provide a smooth transition from
soil to rock. It may be more meaningful to define the material as being one or the other on the basis of additional
geologic information.
IGM
31
fabric is still apparent. The highest degree of weathering applies to materials derived from rock but for which the rock
fabric is not apparent. In this case, the material behavior is
controlled by soil fabric and the material should be classified
as residual soil, even though it may contain fragments of
weathered rock. Materials in which the original minerals have
been completely decomposed to secondary minerals but
where the original fabric is intact may exhibit rock material
behavior governed by rock mass features, including both rock
material and discontinuities. The material should be considered to be rock mass, even though it may be highly weathered
or altered and exhibit low compressive strength. Judgment
is always required in assessing whether material behavior is
governed by soil fabric or by rock mass fabric; however, this
is a key factor to be assessed in a design approach. Whether a
geomaterial is assigned the term IGM or weak rock is not
as important as understanding the geologic processes that give
the material its characteristics and engineering properties.
SUMMARY
soil and rock properties. Wider use of RMR or GSI classification of rock mass is one way that state DOT agencies can
use the most up-to-date methods for characterizing RMS and
deformation properties.
In situ testing methods that provide information on rock
mass modulus include PMT and borehole jack. Five states
reported using these tests to obtain modulus values for rocksocket design. To use the best available analytical models for
axial and lateral loading, as well as for effective interpretation
of load test results, rock mass modulus is a required parameter.
Currently, it is noted that there is no definitive in situ method
or empirical equation for rock mass modulus that has been calibrated specifically for application to design of rock sockets.
A case history example is presented in this chapter illustrating
the beneficial use of both in situ testing (borehole jack) and
empirical correlations with GSI to establish representative values of rock mass modulus for foundation design.
Site and geomaterial characterization are interrelated with
design, construction, and load testing of drilled shafts in
rock. For design, Figure 3 shows that rock mass engineering
properties required for analysis of rock-socket capacity and
load-deformation response are obtained through field and
laboratory testing. Table 15 is a summary of rock mass characteristics used in design methods for axial and lateral loading. A large X indicates the property is used directly in
design equations that are currently applied widely in practice,
whereas a small x indicates that the characteristic is used
indirectly in the design or that it is required for a proposed
design method that is not used widely. For example, intact rock
modulus ER is not used directly to analyze load-displacement
response of socketed shafts, but may be used to estimate the
rock mass modulus EM, which is used directly in the analytical
equations.
Information obtained through the site investigation
process will be used not only by design engineers but by
contractors who will bid on the work and construct the foundations. As indicated in the flowchart shown in Figure 3,
a goal of site characterization is to obtain information on
constructability. ONeill and Reese (1999) point out that contractors will be most interested in knowing the difficulties
that might be encountered in drilling the rock. Specific information that is useful in assessing the difficulty of drilling
in rock includes loss or gain of drill water; rock type with
lithological description; rock strength; characteristics of
weathering; and rock mass characteristics such as the presence, attitude, and thickness of bedding planes, foliation,
joints, faults, stress cracks, cavities, shear planes, or other
discontinuities. Boring logs, containing most of the information determined by the site investigation, are incorporated
directly into the construction plans by most state DOTs. Any
of the above information not given in the boring logs should
be made available to bidders to facilitate informed decisions.
The same information will be used by the design engineer to
forecast potential construction methods and construction
32
TABLE 15
ROCK MASS ENGINEERING PROPERTIES REQUIRED FOR ROCK-SOCKET DESIGN
Design Applications
Lateral Loading
Axial Loading
Unit Side
Resistance
X
Unit Base
Resistance
X
Axial LoadDisplacement
Ultimate
Resistance
X
Load-Displacement
Continuum
p-y Curve
Methods
Parameter
x
Notes: X = property is used directly in equations that are currently applied widely in practice.
x = characteristic is used indirectly in the design or it is required for a proposed design method not
widely used.
33
CHAPTER THREE
SCOPE
Design for axial loading requires reliable site and geomaterial characterization. Accurate geometric information,
especially depth to rock and thickness of weathered and
unweathered rock layers, is essential for correct analysis of
axial resistance. This information is determined using the
tools and methods outlined in the previous chapter, principally core drilling supplemented by geophysical methods.
Rock mass characterization using the Geomechanics System
(Bieniawski 1989) provides a general framework for assessing the overall quality of the rock mass and its suitability as a
foundation material. Engineering properties of the intact rock
and the rock mass are used directly in the analysis methods
described in this chapter. For example, empirical relationships have been derived between rock-socket unit-side resistance and uniaxial strength of intact rock. Base capacity,
analyzed as a bearing capacity problem, may require uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, shear strength of
discontinuities, or the HoekBrown strength parameters of
fractured rock mass, depending upon the occurrence, orientation, and condition of joint surfaces in the rock mass below
the base. For analysis of axial load-displacement response,
the rock mass modulus is required. Modulus may be determined from in situ testing, such as pressuremeter or borehole
jack tests, or estimated from rock mass classification parameters as summarized in Table 12. Engineering properties of
rock mass used in conjunction with LRFD methods should
be mean values, not minimum values sometimes used in geotechnical practice.
A compressive force applied to the top (head) of a rocksocketed drilled shaft is transferred to the ground through
(1) shearing stress that develops at the concreterock interface along the sides of the shaft and (2) the compressive normal stress that develops at the horizontal interface between
the base of the shaft and the underlying rock. A conceptual
model of the load transfer can be illustrated by considering a
generalized axial load versus displacement curve as shown in
Figure 19 (Carter and Kulhawy 1988). Upon initial loading,
shearing stress develops along the vertical shaftrock interface. For a relatively small load, displacement is small and
the stressstrain behavior at the shaftrock interfaces is
linear (line OA). There is no relative displacement (slip)
between the concrete shaft and surrounding rock and the system may be modeled as being linearly elastic. With increasing load, the shear strength along some portion of the shaft
sidewall is exceeded, initiating rupture of the bond and relative slip at the shaftrock interface. The load-displacement
curve becomes nonlinear as rupture, and slip progress and a
greater proportion of the applied load is transferred to the
base (line AB). At some point, the full side resistance is
mobilized, and there is slip along the entire surface (full
slip condition), and a greater proportion of the applied load
is transferred to the shaft base (beyond point B in Figure 19).
If loading is continued to a displacement sufficient to cause
failure of the rock mass beneath the base, a peak compressive
load may be reached. In practice, design of drilled shafts
in rock requires consideration of (1) deformation limits and
(2) geotechnical and structural capacity (strength limit
states). Geotechnical capacity in compression is evaluated in
terms of limiting side and base resistances. Load transfer
in uplift involves the same mechanisms of side resistance
mobilization as described previously for compression.
34
asperities from the direction of shear displacement. The interface shear strength () is then given by
Load, Qc
= c + n tan ( + )
Full slip
B
Progressive slip
A
Linear elastic
Settlement, wc
FIGURE 19 Idealized load-displacement behavior.
(18)
EM r
1+ r
(19)
where EM and are the rock mass modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively; r is the dilation, and r is the original shaft
radius. A normal stiffness K can be defined as the ratio of
normal stress increase to dilation, as follows:
K=
EM
n
=
r r (1 + )
(20)
35
36
tion and inspection techniques to ensure quality base conditions is a better approach than neglecting base resistance. The
authors support their recommendations with field load test
results in which load transferred to the base was measured.
The database consisted of 50 Osterberg load cell (O-cell)
tests and 22 compression tests in which the load was applied
to the top of the shaft. Of those, 30 of the O-cell tests and 4
of the top load tests were conducted on rock-socketed shafts.
Eight of the O-cell tests (27%) showed evidence of bottom
disturbance in the O-cell load-displacement curves. Results
from the 34 tests are plotted in Figure 23 in terms of base load
ratio (Qb = base load, Qt = actual top load or top load inferred
from the O-cell test) versus socket-effective depth-to-diameter
ratio (L/B). For some of the shafts, multiple measurements
are included at different values of load and displacement.
However, all of the base load ratio values correspond to
downward displacements at the top of the shaft that range
from 2.5 mm to 25.4 mm, with most in the range of from 3
to 15 mm. These values are within the service limit state for
most bridge foundations. Additional details regarding the test
shafts, subsurface profiles, and load test interpretation are
given in Crapps and Schmertmann (2002).
Several important observations arise from the data shown in
Figure 23. First, base resistance mobilization represents a significant contribution to overall shaft resistance at downward
displacements corresponding to typical service loads. Second,
the magnitude of base resistance is generally greater than predicted by elasticity-based numerical solutions (e.g., compare
with Figure 21). The dashed lines in Figure 23 represent approximate upper and lower bounds to the data from top load
tests and O-cell tests without bottom disturbance. For the most
part, O-cell tests that exhibited bottom disturbance fall below
the lower-bound curve. Although the data are not sufficient to
provide design values of base load transfer in advance for a
given situation, they provide compelling evidence that shaft
design in rock should account properly for base resistance, and
that quality construction and inspection aimed at minimizing
base disturbance can provide performance benefits.
Time Dependency
Time-dependent changes in load transfer may occur in rocksocketed shafts under service load conditions. Ladanyi (1977)
reported a case in which the bearing stress at the base of an instrumented rock socket increased, at a steadily decreasing
rate, over a period of 4 years; although the total applied head
TABLE 16
REASONS FOR NEGLECTING BASE RESISTANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (after
Crapps and Schmertmann 2002)
Reason Cited for Neglecting Base Resistance
Settled slurry suspension
Reluctance to inspect bottom
Concern for underlying cavities
Unknown or uncertain base resistance
Correction
Utilize available construction and inspection methods
Utilize available construction and inspection methods
Additional inspection below base
Load testing
37
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Qb/Qt
Qs =
surface
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
(21)
in which Qs = total side resistance (force), fsu = unit side resistance (stress), A = surface area along the side of the socket, B =
socket diameter, and L = socket length. In practice, socket side
resistance capacity is calculated by assuming that a single average value of unit side resistance acts along the concreterock
interface, for each rock layer. This value of f is multiplied by
the area of the interface to obtain total side resistance Qs, or
0.6
fsu dA = B fdz
10
Qs = fsu BL
(22)
L/B
The factored axial resistance of a drilled shaft in compression is the sum of the factored side resistance and the factored base resistance. The factored resistances are calculated by multiplying appropriate resistance factors by the
nominal resistances, which are generally taken as the ultimate values. One approach to the design process depicted
in Figure 3 of chapter one is to size the foundation initially
to achieve a factored resistance that exceeds the factored
loads. The trial design is then analyzed to predict loaddisplacement response. If necessary, revised trial dimensions can then be analyzed until all of the design criteria are
satisfied, including the movement criteria associated with
the service limit state. In the case of axial loading, the ultimate
side and base resistances are required to establish the initial
trial design.
Side Resistance
The ultimate side resistance of a rock socket is the summation of peak shearing stress acting over the surface of the
socket, expressed mathematically by
(23)
38
(24)
(25)
(26)
rh Lt
rs Ls
(27)
in which RF = roughness factor, rh = average height of asperities, rs = nominal socket radius, Ls = nominal socket
length, and Lt = total travel distance along the socket wall
profile. A device (caliper) was used to measure field roughness for determination of the parameters needed in Eq. 27, as
described by Horvath et al. (1993).
The FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual (ONeill and Reese 1999)
and the draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications have adopted Eqs. 24 to 27 as a recommended
method for selection of design side resistance for shafts in rock.
(29)
TABLE 17
SHAFT ROUGHNESS CLASSIFICATION (after Pells et al. 1980)
Roughness
Class
R1
R2
R3
R4
(28)
Description
Straight, smooth-sided socket; grooves or indentations less than 1 mm deep
Grooves 14 mm deep, >2 mm wide, spacing 50200 mm
Grooves 410 mm deep, >5 mm wide, spacing 50200 mm
Grooves or undulations >10 mm deep, >10 mm wide, spacing 50200 mm
(30)
39
40
TABLE 18
SIDE RESISTANCE
REDUCTION BASED ON
MODULUS REDUCTION
(ONeill and Reese 1999)
EM/ER
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.05
= fdes/fsu
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.55
0.45
side resistance recommended for design. The modulus reduction ratio (EM/ER) is given in Table 13, in chapter two,
based on RQD. However, application of the -factor may be
questionable because the RQD and rock mass modulus were
not accounted for explicitly in the original correlation analysis by Horvath and Kenney (1979). Because the load test data
included sites with RQD less than 100 and modulus ratio values less than one, it would appear that these factors affected
the load test results and are therefore already incorporated
into the resulting correlation equations.
Interface roughness is identified by all researchers as having a significant effect on peak side resistance. Pells et al.
(1980) proposed the roughness classification that assigns a
rock socket to one of the categories R1 through R4 as defined
in Table 17. The criteria are based on observations of sockets drilled in Sydney sandstone and the classification reportedly forms the basis for current practice in that city (Seidel
and Collingwood 2001). The Rowe and Armitage (1987b)
correlation equations were developed by distinguishing between roughness classes R1R3 (Eq. 28) and roughness class
R4 (Eq. 29). Horvath et al. (1983) proposed the roughness
factor (RF) defined in Eqs. 26 and 27 as presented earlier.
Despite these efforts, selection of side resistance for rocksocket design in the United States is done mostly without
considering interface roughness explicitly.
Seidel and Haberfield (1994) developed a theoretical model
of interface roughness that accounts for the behavior and characteristics of socket interfaces under CNS conditions. Roughness is modeled using a quasi-probabilistic approach that
involves fractal geometry to predict the distribution and characteristics of asperities. Results of the interface model and
laboratory CNS testing are incorporated into the computer program ROCKET that predicts the axial load-displacement curve,
including post-peak behavior. Extending this work, Seidel and
Collingwood (2001) proposed a nondimensional parameter
defined as the shaft resistance coefficient (SRC) to account for
the factors that influence side resistance, as follows:
SRC = c
n r
1 + ds
fsu = (SRC) qu
(31)
(32)
in which c = construction method reduction factor, as defined in Table 19; n = ratio of rock mass modulus to uniaxial
compressive strength of intact rock (EM/qu); v = Poissons
ratio; r = mean roughness height; and ds = socket diameter.
Implementation of the SRC in design requires an estimate
of socket roughness in terms of r. As noted by the authors,
reliable measurements of roughness are not undertaken in
routine design. However, the SRC factor incorporates many
of the significant parameters that influence side resistance,
including rock mass modulus, Poissons ratio, and intact rock
strength, and provides a framework for taking into account
socket roughness and construction effects.
The SRC method represents the type of approach that
holds promise for improved methods for selecting design side
resistance. Although more detailed guidance is required for
determination of socket roughness and construction effects,
improvements in reliability of design equations are possible
only if the relevant factors controlling side resistance are incorporated properly. Advancement of the SRC or other robust
methods can be facilitated by promoting the awareness of
engineers involved in field load testing of the importance of
collecting appropriate data on rock mass characteristics. Documentation of RMS and modulus along with careful observation
and documentation of construction procedures would allow
these methods to be evaluated against load test results. The key
parameter that is currently missing from the database is socket
roughness. ONeill et al. (1996) point out that roughness can be
quantified approximately by making electronic or mechanical
caliper logs of the borehole, and that such borehole calipers are
available commercially. Seidel and Collingwood (2001) describe a device called the Socket-Pro that is operated remotely
and records sidewall roughness to depths of 60 m.
Geomaterial-Specific Correlations
Correlations between unit side resistance and intact rock
strength that are based on a global database (e.g., Figure 24,
Eq. 30) exhibit scatter and uncertainty because the results
reflect the variations in interface shear strength of different
rock types, interface roughness, and other factors that control
side resistance. For this reason, selection of design side resistance values based on such correlations should be considered as first-order estimates and the philosophy underlying
their use for design is that a lower-bound, conservative relationship should be used (e.g., C = 1 in Eq. 30). Alternatively,
correlations have been developed for specific geomaterials.
Correlations identified by the literature review and the survey
are summarized here.
Florida Limestone
Limestone formations in Florida are
characterized by highly variable strength profiles, the presence of cavities that may be filled with soil, and interbedding
of limestone with sand and marine clay layers (Crapps 1986).
Locally, geotechnical engineers distinguish between lime-
41
TABLE 19
CONSTRUCTION METHOD REDUCTION FACTORS, c (Seidel and Collingwood 2001)
Construction Method
Construction without drilling fluid
Best practice construction and high level of construction control (e.g., socket
sidewalls free of smear and remolded rock)
Poor construction practice or low-quality construction control (e.g., smear or
remolded rock present on rock sidewalls)
Construction under bentonite slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control
Construction under polymer slurry
Best practice construction and high level of construction control
Poor construction practice or low level of construction control
1
qu qt
2
(33)
In which qu = uniaxial compressive strength and qt = split tensile strength. To account for the effect of material strength
variability on side resistance, the authors recommend a minimum of 10 (preferably more) core samples be tested in unconfined compression and splitting tensile tests. The mean
values of qu and qt are used in Eq. 33. The standard error
of the mean from the laboratory strength tests can be used to
estimate the expected variation from the mean side resistance, for a specified confidence level.
According to Lai (1998), design practice by the Florida
DOT is based on a modified version of the McVay et al.
relationship in which spatial variations in rock quality are
incorporated by multiplying the unit side resistance, according to Eq. 33, by the average percent recovery (REC) of rock
core expressed as a decimal, or:
( fsu )design =
REC(%) 1
qu qt
100% 2
c
1.0
0.30.9
0.70.9
0.30.6
0.91.0
0.8
(34)
Lai (1998) also recommends using larger diameter doubletube core barrels (61 mm to 101.6 mm inner diameter) for obtaining samples of sufficient quality for laboratory strength
tests. Analysis of the laboratory strength data involves discarding all data points above or below one standard deviation
about the mean, then using the mean of the remaining values
as input to Eq. 34. Crapps (2001) recommends using RQD in
place of REC in Eq. 34 and points out that values of qu and qt
(35)
in which fsu = ultimate unit side resistance, v' = vertical effective stress, Ko = in situ coefficient of lateral earth pressure, and
' = effective stress friction angle of the IGM. The modifications to account for cohesionless IGM behavior are incorporated into empirical correlations with the N-value as follows:
'p = 0.2 N 60 pa
OCR =
'p
v'
(36)
(37)
42
nut
plate
centerhole
jack
steel bearing
plate
timber
35 mm dia
threaded bar
200-mm dia
casing
top of rock
drilled
hole,
165 mm dia
0.76 m cored
hole, 140 mm dia
different value of interface friction applies, then the parameter can be adjusted by
= 26
N
60
' = tan 1
12.2 + 20.3 'v
p
a
K o = (1 sin ')OCR sin '
0.34
(38)
(39)
(40)
where qu = compressive strength of intact rock and = empirical factor given in Figure 27. In Figure 27, n = fluid pressure exerted by the concrete at the time of the pour and p =
atmospheric pressure in the same units as n. As indicated
in Figure 27, the method is based on an assumed value of
interface friction angle rc = 30 degrees. If it is known that a
tan rc
tan 30 o
(41)
Load transmitted to the base of a rock-socketed shaft, expressed as a percentage of the axial compression load applied
43
Rock Mass Conditions
Joint Dip
Angle, from
horizontal
Joint
Spacing
Failure
Illustration
Mode
(a) Brittle Rock:
Local shear failure caused
by localized brittle fracture
INTACT / MASSIVE
N/A
S>>B
s
S<B
70 < < 90
S>B
20 < < 70
S < B or
S > B if
failure
we dge can
de ve lop
along joints
H
Massive Rock
For this case, the ultimate bearing capacity will be limited to
the bearing stress that causes fracturing in the rock. An intact
rock mass can be defined, for purposes of bearing capacity
analysis, as one for which the effects of discontinuities are
insignificant. Practically, if joint spacing is more than four
to five times the shaft diameter, the rock is massive. If the
base is embedded in rock to a depth of at least one diameter, the failure mode is expected to be by punching shear
(Figure 28, mode a). In this case, Rowe and Armitage
(1987b) stated that rock fracturing can be expected to occur
when the bearing stress is approximately 2.7 times the rock
uniaxial compressive strength. For design, the following is
recommended:
qult = 2.5 qu
LAYERED
(42)
rigid
Eq. 43
Eq. 44
Eqs. 4552
Eqs. 5354
Eqs. 4552
0 < < 20
Limiting
va lue of H
w/re to B is
dependent
upon
material
properties
weak, compressible
H
rigid
N/A
N/A
weak, compressible
FRACTURED
Eq. 43
s
JOINTED
Bearing
Capacity
Equation No.
N/A
S << B
Eq. 57
is either intact or tightly jointed (no compressible or gougefilled seams) and there are no solution cavities or voids below
the base of the pier. ONeill and Reese (1999) recommend
limiting base resistance to 2qu if the embedment into rock is
less than one diameter. In rock with high compressive
strength, the designer also must determine the structural capacity of the shaft, which may govern the allowable normal
stress at the base.
Jointed Rock Mass
When discontinuities are vertical or nearly vertical ( > 70),
and open joints are present with a spacing less than the socket
diameter (S < B, Figure 28, mode c), failure can occur (theoretically) by unconfined compression of the poorly constrained columns (Sowers 1979). Bearing capacity can be
estimated from
qult = qu = 2c tan (45 + 12 )
(44)
(43)
44
eral wedge failure mode may develop and the bearing capacity can be approximated using Bells solution for plane
strain conditions:
qult = cN c sc +
B
N s + DN q sq
2
(45)
( N + 1)
( N 2 1)
(46)
(47)
(48)
N = tan 2 45 +
(49)
Nq
sc = 1 +
Nc
(50)
s = 0.6
(51)
sq = 1 + tan
(52)
(53)
2 N 2
1 + N
( cot )
S
1
N ( cot ) + 2 N
1
B
N
(54)
45
dard test method for direct measurement. One possible approach is to employ the HoekBrown strength criterion
described in chapter two. The criterion is attractive because
(1) it captures the nonlinearity in the strength envelope that
is observed in jointed rock masses and (2) the required parameters can be estimated empirically using correlations to
GSI and RMR, also described in chapter two. To use this
approach, it is necessary to relate the HoekBrown strength
parameters (mb, s, and a) to MohrCoulomb strength parameters (c' and '); for example, using Eqs. 16 and 17 in
chapter two.
Alternatively, several authors (Carter and Kulhawy 1988;
Wyllie 1999) have shown that a conservative, lower-bound
estimate of bearing capacity can be made directly in terms
of HoekBrown strength parameters by assuming a failure
mode approximated by active and passive wedges; that is,
the Bell solution for plane strain. The failure mass beneath
the foundation is idealized as consisting of two zones, as
shown in Figure 30. The active zone (Zone 1) is subjected
to a major principal stress (1') coinciding at failure with the
ultimate bearing capacity (qult) and a minor principal stress
(3') that satisfies equilibrium with the horizontal stress in
the adjacent passive failure zone (Zone 2). In Zone 2, the
minor principal stress is vertical and conservatively assumed to be zero, whereas the major principal stress, acting
in the horizontal direction, is the ultimate strength according to the HoekBrown criterion. From chapter two, the
strength criterion is given by
'
'1 = '3 + qu mb 3 + s
qu
(55)
(56)
(57)
The assumption of zero vertical stress at the bearing elevation may be overly conservative for many rock sockets. A
similar derivation can be carried out with the overburden
stress taken into account, resulting in the following. Let
( 'v ,b )
A = 'v ,b + qu mb
+ s
qu
(58)
qult = A + qu mb + s
(59)
Qult
m i = 33
25
qusa
qult/qu
2.0
qult
20
15
10
1.5
1.0
0.5
Zone 2
(passive wedge)
Zone 1
(active
wedge)
Zone 2
(passive wedge)
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alternatively, the bearing capacity ratio can be related approximately to the rock mass description based on RMR
(Table 9) using an earlier correlation given by Hoek and
Brown (1988). The resulting HoekBrown strength parameters (m, a, and s) are substituted into Eq. 57 to obtain the bearing capacity ratio as a function of RMR. This relationship
is shown graphically in Figure 32. Both figures are for the
case of zero overburden stress at the bearing elevation. To account for the depth of embedment and resulting surcharge
stress, Eqs. 58 and 59 can be used.
46
1000
qmax = 2.5
100
qult = a (qu)0.5
10
a = 6.6
4.8
3.0
1
0.1
10
100
(60)
(61)
qult = 4.8 qu
(62)
Mean:
with due consideration of the limitations associated with predicting a rock mass behavior on the basis of a single strength
parameter for intact rock. Rock mass discontinuities are not
accounted for explicitly, yet they clearly must affect bearing
capacity. By taking this empirical approach, however, rock
mass behavior is accounted for implicitly because the load
tests on which the method is based were affected by the characteristics of the rock masses. Additional limitations to the
approach given by Zhang and Einstein are noted in a discussion of their paper by Kulhawy and Prakoso (1999).
None of the analytical bearing capacity models described
above by Eqs. 44 through 59 and depicted in Figure 28 have
been evaluated and verified against results of full-scale field
load tests on rock-socketed drilled shafts. The primary reason for this is a lack of load test data accompanied by sufficient information on rock mass properties needed to apply
the models.
Canadian Geotechnical Society Method
qult/qu
2.0
E
D
C
B
A
1.5
1.0
0.5
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
INTACT
VERY GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
VERY POOR
0.0
(63)
in which
K sp =
3+
sv
B
10 1 + 300
td
sv
(64)
47
d = 1 + 0.4
Ls
B
Qc
(65)
where
sv = vertical spacing between discontinuities,
td = aperture (thickness) of discontinuities,
B = socket diameter, and
Ls = depth of socket (rock) embedment.
A method to calculate ultimate unit base resistance from
PMT is also given by CGS as follows:
qult = K b ( p1 po ) + v
0
0.8
1
2.8
Er,r
Eb, b
(66)
where
p1 = limit pressure determined from PMT tests averaged
over a depth of two diameters above and below
socket base elevation,
po = at-rest total horizontal stress measured at base
elevation,
v = total vertical stress at base elevation; and
Kb = socket depth factor given as follows:
H/D
Kb
Ec,
c
2
3.6
3
4.2
5
4.9
7
5.2
shaft is subjected to a vertical compressive force Qc assumed to be uniformly distributed over the cross-sectional
area of the shaft resulting in an average axial stress b =
4Q/(B2).
Early solutions to the problem of a single compressible
pile in an elastic continuum were used primarily to study
the response of deep foundations in soil (e.g., Mattes and
Poulos 1969; Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Randolph and
Wroth 1978). In most cases, the solutions were not directly
applicable to rock sockets because they did not cover the
typical ranges of modulus ratio (Ec/Er) or embedment ratio
(L/B) of rock sockets, but they did provide the basic
methodology for analysis of the problem. Osterberg and
Gill (1973) used an elastic finite-element formulation to analyze rock sockets with D/B ranging from zero to 4 and the
modulus ratios ranging from 0.25 to 4. Their analysis also
considered differences between the modulus of the rock beneath the base (Eb) and that along the shaft (Er). Results
showed the influence of these parameters on load transfer,
in particular the relative portion of load carried in side resistance and transmitted to the base, but did not provide a
method for predicting load-displacement behavior for design. Pells and Turner (1979) and Donald et al. (1980) conducted finite-element analyses assuming elastic and elastoplastic behaviors. Their numerical results were used to
determine values of the dimensionless influence factor (I)
that can be used to predict elastic deformation using the
general equation
wc =
Qc
I
Er B
(67)
48
(68)
49
(69)
(70)
= ln [5(1 vr)L/B]
(71)
= Ec/Gr
(72)
(73)
Gr = Er / [2(1 + vr]
Q
wc = F1 c F2 B
Er B
(78)
(79)
c
F2 = a2
Er
(80)
( 2 + 4 )
2
(82)
(83)
E
= a3 c B
Er
(84)
a1 = (1 + vr) + a2
(85)
1
E
a2 = (1 c ) r + (1 + r )
Ec
2 tan tan
c Er
a3 =
2 tan Ec
(86)
(87)
(88)
in which
F3 = a1(1BC3 2BC4) 4a3
C 3 ,4 =
(74)
(81)
E B2
= a1 c
Er 4
2
c
F4 = 1 a1 1
B a2
D
Er
4
3
4 1 2 L tanh [L ]
1+
1 b B L
Gr Bwc
=
L tanh [L ]
2Qc
4 1 2 2L
+
1 b B L
D3,4
D4 D3
(89)
(90)
(91)
(92)
where
= Gr /Gb
Gb = Eb/ [2(1 + vb]
(75)
(76)
4 1
Qb
1 b cosh [L ]
=
Qc 4 1 2 2 L tanh [L ]
+
1 b B L
Qb
B 2 c
= P3 + P4
Qc
Qc
(93)
in which
P3 = a1(1 2) B exp[(1 + 2)L]/(D4 D3) (94)
P4 = a2(exp[2D] exp[1L])/(D4 D3)
(77)
(95)
50
a simple analytical tool for assessing the likely ranges of behavior for trial designs. A spreadsheet solution provides the
opportunity to easily evaluate the effects of various input parameters on load-displacement response. When combined
with appropriate judgment and experience, this approach
represents a reasonable analysis of rock-socketed drilled
shafts. The method of Carter and Kulhawy presented herein
is also adopted in the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual (ONeill
and Reese 1999) for analysis of load-displacement response
of single drilled shafts in rock (see Appendix C of the Manual). Reese and ONeill also present methods for predicting
load-displacement response of shafts in cohesive IGMs and
cohesionless IGMs. The equations are not reproduced here,
but are given as closed-form expressions that can be implemented easily using a spreadsheet.
Other Methods
A fundamental aspect of drilled shaft response to axial compression loading is that side and base resistances are mobilized
at different downward displacements. Side resistance typically reaches a maximum at relatively small displacement,
in the range of 5 to 10 mm. Beyond this level, side resistance may remain constant or decrease, depending on the
stressstrain properties of the shaft-rock interface. Ductile
behavior describes side resistance that remains constant or
decreases slightly with increasing displacement. If the interface is brittle, side resistance may decrease rapidly and
significantly with further downward displacement. One
question facing the designer is how much side resistance is
51
A promising technique for improving base loaddisplacement response of drilled shafts involves post-grouting
at the base (base grouting). The technique involves casting
drilled shafts with a grout delivery system incorporated into
the reinforcing cage capable of placing high pressure grout
at the base of the shaft, after the shaft concrete has cured. The
effect is to compress debris left by the drilling process, thus
facilitating mobilization of base resistance within service or
displacement limits. According to Mullins et al. (2006), base
grouting is used widely internationally, but its use in North
America has been limited. An additional potential advantage
is that the grouting procedure allows a proof test to be conducted on the shaft. Base grouting warrants further consideration as both a quality construction technique and a testing
tool for rock-socketed shafts.
For evaluation of service limit states, both side and base
resistances should be included in the analysis. Analytical
methods that can provide reasonable predictions of axial
load-deformation response, for example the Carter and Kulhawy method described in this chapter or similar methods
given by ONeill and Reese (1999), provide practical tools
for this type of analysis. All of these methods require evaluation of rock mass modulus.
CURRENT AASHTO PRACTICE
recommendations given by Allen (2005). Rock mass properties used with LRFD resistance factors should be based on
average values, not minimum values.
Three methods are cited for predicting ultimate unit side
resistance in rock. The first is identified as Horvath and Kenney (1979). However, the equation given in the AASHTO
Specifications is actually the original Horvath and Kenney
recommendation (Eq. 25), but with unit side resistance modified to account for RQD. A reduction factor, , is applied,
as determined by Table 13 and Table 18 of this report. This
approach was recommended by ONeill and Reese (1999).
The second method is identified as Carter and Kulhawy
(1988). The draft 2006 Interim AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications does not state explicitly the equation to
be used in connection with the Carter and Kulhawy method.
However, in the calibration study by Paikowsky et al. (2004a)
the expression used for all evaluations attributed to Carter
and Kulhawy is
fsu = 0.15 qu
(96)
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF CURRENT AASHTO METHODS AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
Method/Condition
Side resistance in
rock
0.50
0.60
0.55
Resistance
Factor
0.55
0.50
0.55
Rock
0.50
0.50
<0.70*
0.40
0.40
0.60
52
SUMMARY
53
and Kulhawy closed-form expressions were evaluated. However, the charts are more cumbersome to use. A computer
program that models the full load-displacement curve,
ROCKET, is available, but requires input parameters that
normally are not determined by transportation agencies, such
as triaxial strength properties and socket roughness parameters. However, for agencies interested in obtaining the
required material properties, this program offers an effective
method for axial load-deformation analysis.
54
CHAPTER FOUR
SCOPE
DESIGN PROCESS
Deep foundations supporting bridge structures may be subjected to lateral loading from a variety of sources, including
earth pressures, centrifugal forces from moving vehicles,
braking forces, wind loading, flowing water, waves, ice, seismic forces, and impact. Reese (1984) describes numerous
examples of bridges, overhead sign structures, and retaining
structures as typical examples of transportation facilities that
must sustain significant lateral loading. Drilled shafts are often selected for such structures because they can be designed
to sustain lateral loading by proper sizing of the shaft and by
providing a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel to resist the
resulting bending moments.
Design for lateral loading of drilled shafts requires significant interaction between geotechnical and structural
engineers. As described in chapter one, the Bridge Office
(structural) is responsible for structural analysis and design
of the superstructure and the foundations. However, to model
foundation response to lateral loading it is necessary to account for soil/rock-structure interaction. The Geotechnical
Division (GD) normally conducts foundation analysis using
the models described in this chapter. For preliminary foundation design, geotechnical modeling of foundation response by the GD is used to provide the Bridge Office with
information such as depth of fixity, trial designs (diameter
and depth) of drilled shafts, and equivalent lateral spring
values for use in seismic analysis of the superstructure. The
Bridge Office conducts analyses of the superstructure based
on models that include fixed-end columns at the depth of
fixity. The structural analysis may result in revised loads
Axial loading in both compression and uplift requires structural analysis and reinforced-concrete design for drilled shafts.
When lateral loading is not significant, structural design is reasonably straightforward. When lateral loading is significant,
the combined effects of lateral and axial loading are analyzed
using models described in this chapter, which account for the
effect of axial load by treating the shaft as a beam column. For
this reason, structural design issues associated with rocksocketed shafts are addressed in this chapter.
ROCK-SOCKETED FOUNDATIONS
FOR LATERAL LOADING
Rock-socketed shafts provide significant benefits for carrying lateral loads. Embedment into rock, in most cases,
reduces the lateral displacements substantially compared
with a deep foundation in soil. To take full advantage of
rock-socketed drilled shafts, designers must have confidence in the analytical tools used for design. The survey
questionnaire shows that traditional methods of analysis
for lateral loading of piles and drilled shafts in soil are the
most widely used methods currently employed for rock
sockets. Recent research has led to some advancements for
applying these methods to rock. In addition, several researchers have proposed new analytical methods that provide
designers with useful tools for predicting load-displacement
response and/or structural response of the reinforcedconcrete shaft. Each method has advantages and disadvantages
for design purposes and these are discussed in the following
sections.
55
ANALYTICAL METHODS
d4y
d2y
+ Pz 2 p w = 0
4
dz
dz
(97)
56
applies to many drilled shafts, considerable reduction in displacement at the pile head can be achieved by socketing,
especially if the effect of the socket is to approximate a
fixed condition at the soil/rock interface.
The elastic continuum approach was further developed by
Randolph (1981) through use of the finite-element method
(FEM). Solutions presented by Randolph cover a wide range
of conditions for flexible piles and the results are presented in
the form of charts as well as convenient closed-form solutions
for a limited range of parameters. The solutions do not adequately cover the full range of parameters applicable to rocksocketed shafts used in practice. Extension of this approach
by Carter and Kulhawy (1992) to rigid shafts and shafts of
intermediate flexibility, as described subsequently, has led to
practical analytical tools based on the continuum approach.
Sun (1994) applied elastic continuum theory to deep foundations using variational calculus to obtain the governing differential equations of the soil and pile system, based on the
Vlasov model for a beam on elastic foundation. This approach
was extended to rock-socketed shafts by Zhang et al. (2000),
and is also described in this chapter.
The p-y method of analysis, as implemented in various computer codes, is the single most widely used method for
design of drilled shafts in rock. Responses to the survey questionnaire for this study showed that 28 U.S. state transportation
agencies (of 32 responding) use this method. The analytical
procedure is dependent on being able to represent the response of soil and rock by an appropriate family of p-y
curves. The only reliable way to verify p-y curves is through
instrumented full-scale load tests. The approach that forms
the basis for most of the published recommendations for p-y
curves in soil is to instrument deep foundations with strain
gages to determine the distribution of bending moment over
the length of the foundation during a load test. Assuming that
the bending moment can be determined reliably from strain
gage measurements, the moment as a function of depth can
be differentiated twice to obtain p and integrated twice to
obtain y. Measured displacements at the foundation head
provide a boundary condition at that location. The p-y curves
resulting from analysis of field load tests have then been correlated empirically to soil strength and stressstrain properties determined from laboratory and in situ tests.
p = Kiry
(98)
pur y
2 yrm
0.25
yrm = krmB
(99)
(100)
(101)
where
Kir = initial slope of the curve,
pur = the rock mass ultimate resistance,
B = shaft diameter, and
krm is a constant ranging from 0.0005 to 0.00005 that serves
to establish the overall stiffness of the curve.
57
pur
yA =
0.25
2 ( yrm ) K ir
1.333
(102)
B
pur = 5.2rquB
for 0 xr 3B
for xr 3B
(103)
(104)
(105)
where Eir = rock mass initial elastic modulus and kir = dimensionless constant given by
400 xr
kir = 100 +
3 B
kir = 500
for xr > 3B
for 0 xr 3B
(106)
(107)
58
range of 0.55 MPa. The user assigns a value to krm. The documentation (Ensoft, Inc. 2004) recommends to:
. . . examine the stressstrain curve of the rock sample. Typically, the krm is taken as the strain at 50% of the maximum
strength of the core sample. Because limited experimental data
are available for weak rock during the derivation of the p-y
criteria, the krm from a particular site may not be in the range
between 0.0005 and 0.00005. For such cases, you may use the
upper bound value (0.0005) to get a larger value of yrm, which in
turn will provide a more conservative result.
59
p ult
y
FIGURE 41 Hyperbolic p-y curve.
model. Tests were performed on shafts in Piedmont weathered profiles of sandstone, mica schist, and crystalline rock.
Finite-element modeling was used to calibrate a p-y curve
model incorporating subgrade modulus as determined from
PMT readings and providing close agreement with strains
and deflections measured in the load tests. The model was
then used to make forward predictions of lateral load response for subsequent load tests on socketed shafts at two
locations in weathered rock profiles different than those used
to develop the model.
The procedure for establishing values of subgrade modulus
Kh involves determination of the rock mass modulus (EM) from
PMT measurements. The coefficient of subgrade reaction is
then given by:
kh =
0.65E M E M B 4
B (1 vr2 ) Es I s
1
12
(108)
A summary of the two studies, including recommendations for selection of the required parameters (Kh and pult),
is presented.
In the North Carolina study, results of six full-scale field
load tests, at three different sites, were used to develop the
units : l 3
(109)
y
1
y
+
K h pult
kh
(110)
For depths below the point of rotation, a stiffer lateral subgrade reaction is assigned and the reader is referred to Gabr
et al. (2002) for the equations. An alternative procedure is
presented for cases where rock mass modulus is determined
using the empirical correlation given by Hoek and Brown
(1997) and presented previously as expression 7 in Table 12
of chapter two. In that expression, rock mass modulus is correlated with GSI and uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock (qu).
60
(111)
(112)
(113)
ior of the concrete shaft, which reduces the predicted deflections more significantly than the p-y criteria. One of the limitations of the p-y criterion proposed by Gabr et al. (2002) is
that it is based on analyses in which EI is taken as a constant.
For proper analysis of soilrockstructure interaction during
lateral loading, the nonlinear momentEI relationship should
be modeled correctly.
The North Carolina DOT also reports using the program
LTBASE, which analyzes the lateral load-displacement
response of deep foundations as described by Gabr and
Borden (1988). The analysis is based on the p-y method, but
also accounts for base resistance by including a vertical
resistance component mobilized by shaft rotation and horizontal shear resistance, as illustrated in Figure 43. Base resistance becomes significant as the relative rigidity of the
shaft increases and as the slenderness ratio decreases. For
relatively rigid rock sockets, mobilization of vertical and
shear resistance at the tip could increase overall lateral capacity significantly, and base resistance effects should be
considered. Gabr et al. (2002) stated that the hyperbolic WR
p-y curve model is now incorporated into LTBASE, but no
results were given.
Results of one of the field load tests conducted for the purpose of evaluating the predictive capability of the proposed
weak rock (WR) model is shown in Figure 42. The analyses
were carried out using the program LPILE. Analyses were also
conducted using p-y curves as proposed by Reese (1997), described previously, as well as several other p-y curve recommendations. The proposed model based on hyperbolic p-y
curves derived from PMT measurements (labeled dilatometer
in Figure 42) shows good agreement with the test results. The
authors (Gabr et al. 2002) attributed the underpredicted displacements obtained using the Reese criteria to the large values
of the factor kir predicted by Eqs. 106 and 107. However, the
analysis did not incorporate the nonlinear momentEI behav-
In the Ohio DOT study, Liang and Yang (2006) also propose a hyperbolic p-y curve criterion. The derivation is based
on theoretical considerations and finite-element analyses.
Results of two full-scale, fully instrumented field load tests
are compared with predictions based on the proposed p-y
curve criterion. The initial slope of the hyperbolic p-y curve
is given by the following semi-empirical equation:
B
K h = EM
Bref
2 v Es I s
r
E B 4
e
M
0.284
(114)
61
GSI
Er 21
e .7
100
(115)
pult = pL + max pA B
4
(116)
62
( EI )c
B 4
64
(117)
It is assumed that the elastic shaft is embedded in a homogeneous, isotropic elastic rock mass, with properties Er
and vr. Effects of variations in the Poissons ratio of the rock
mass (vr), are represented approximately by an equivalent
shear modulus of the rock mass (G*), defined as:
3v
G = Gr 1 + r
(118)
63
Gr =
Er
2 (1 + vr )
(119)
B G
2/7
(120)
H E
= 1.08 2 e
G B G
M E
+ 1.08 2 e
G B G
M E
+ 6.40 3 e
G B G
(121)
7
(122)
(123)
and
Ee
G 100
2
2D
The accuracy of Eqs. 125 and 126 has been verified for the
following ranges of parameters: 1 D/B 10 and Ee/Er 1.
Shafts can be described as having intermediate stiffness
whenever the slenderness ratio is bounded approximately as
follows:
E
0.05 e
G
D E
< < e
B G
(124)
M
2D
+ 0.3 2
G B B
M 2 D
+ 0.8 3
G B B
(125)
(126)
(127)
64
1 + sin '
1 sin '
(128)
(129)
zy
0
pult dz
M o = M + Hz y
zy
0
(130)
pult ( z y z ) dz
(131)
65
pult = N p cu B
Np = 3 +
'
J
z+
z9
cu
2R
(132)
(133)
(134)
where Kp = Rankine coefficient of passive earth pressure defined by Eq. 129. Ultimate resistance of the rock mass is
given by
pult = ( pL + max ) B
(135)
Each of the analytical methods described above has advantages and disadvantages for use in the design of rock-socketed
shafts for highway bridge structures. The greatest need for
further development of all available methods is a more thorough database of load test results against which existing
theory can be evaluated, modified, and calibrated.
The simple closed-form expressions given by Carter and
Kulhawy (1992) represent a convenient, first-order approximation of displacements and rotations of rock-socketed
shafts. Advantages include the following:
Predicts lateral displacements under working load
conditions,
Requires a single material parameter (rock mass
modulus),
Provides reasonable agreement with theoretically
rigorous finite-element analysis, and
Is the easiest method to apply by practicing design
engineers.
Limitations include:
Does not predict the complete lateral load-displacement
curve,
Elastic solution does not provide shear and moment distribution for structural design,
Does not account for more than one rock mass layer,
Does not account directly for nonlinear MEI behavior
of reinforced-concrete shaft, and
Does not account for interaction between axial and lateral
loading and its effects on structural behavior of the shaft.
The method can be best used for preliminary design; for
example, establishing the initial trial depth and diameter of
rock-socketed shafts under lateral and moment loading. For
some situations, no further analysis may be necessary. Final
design should be verified by field load testing.
The method of Zhang et al. (2000) provides a more rigorous
continuum-based analysis than that of Carter and Kulhawy.
The tradeoff is that more material parameters are required as
input. Variation of rock mass modulus with depth is required.
To fully utilize the nonlinear capabilities, the HoekBrown
yield criterion parameters are required, and these are based on
establishing the RMR and/or GSI. The method is best applied
when a more refined analysis is required and the agency is willing to invest in proper determination of the required material
properties. Advantages include:
Predicts the full, nonlinear, lateral load-deformation response;
Accounts for partial yield in either the rock mass or the
overlying soil (more realistic);
66
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
Twenty of the questionnaire responses indicated that structural design of drilled shaft foundations is carried out by engineers in the Bridge Design or Structures Division of their
state DOTs. Three states indicated that structural design is a
joint effort between the Geotechnical and Structural/Bridge
Divisions. One DOT indicated that structural design is done
by the Geotechnical Branch. All of the states responding to
the structural design portion of the questionnaire stated that
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications are followed for structural design of drilled shafts. Three states also
cited the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete.
Barker et al. (1991) discussed the structural design of
reinforced-concrete shafts and have several design examples
illustrating the basic concepts. ONeill and Reese (1999) also
covered the general aspects of reinforced-concrete design for
67
P
M
M
V
Top of
Column
V
y
Equivalent
Fixed-end
Column
Deep
Foundation
depth of fixity
FIGURE 47 Depth of fixity for equivalent fixed-end column.
General Issues
The language in this provision could be improved by providing a definition of fixity. Fixity is defined by Davisson
(1970) for piles under lateral loading as the depth below
groundline corresponding to the fixed base of an equivalent
free-standing column; that is, a column for which the top
deflection and rotation would be the same as that of a column
supported by the embedded deep foundation (Figure 47).
Approximate equations are given by Davisson for establishing
3V ( EI )
=
2 M ( EI )
LM =
(136)
2
(137)
68
LV
2V ( EI )
=
LM =
M ( EI )
M
Moment Transfer
2
(138)
(139)
Shear
69
where Avs = area of shear reinforcement, s = longitudinal (vertical) spacing of the ties or pitch of the spiral, and d = effective
shear depth. For a circular cross section this can be taken as
Ag f '
s = 0.45 1 c
Ac f y
(140)
(141)
Pu
Vc = 2 1 +
2, 000 Ag
f c' Av
(142)
(143)
(144)
Avs f y d
s
(145)
B B
d 0.9 + ls
2
(146)
70
SUMMARY
Lateral loading is a major design consideration for transportation structures and in many cases governs the design of
rock-socketed drilled shafts. Design for lateral loading must
satisfy performance criteria with respect to (1) structural resistance of the reinforced-concrete shaft for the strength limit
state and (2) deflection criteria for the service limit state.
Analytical methods that provide structural analysis of deep
foundations while accounting for soilstructure interaction
have, therefore, found wide application in the transportation
(147)
in which Pr = factored axial resistance, with or without flexure; = resistance factor (0.75 for columns with spiral transverse reinforcement, 0.70 for tied transverse reinforcement);
fc' = strength of concrete at 28 days; Ag = gross area of the
section; Ast = total area of longitudinal reinforcement; and
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement. One source of
uncertainty is that the design equations given here are for
unconfined reinforced-concrete columns. The effect of confinement provided by rock on the concrete strength is not
easy to quantify, but increases the strength compared with
zero confinement, and warrants further investigation.
71
CHAPTER FIVE
SCOPE
The art and science of drilled shaft construction are as important to the success of a bridge foundation project as are
the analytical methods used to design the shafts. Construction of shafts in rock can be some of the most challenging and
may require special expertise and equipment. Experience
demonstrates that the key components of success are: (1) adequate knowledge of the subsurface conditions, for both
design and construction; (2) a competent contractor with the
proper equipment to do the job; and (3) a design that takes
into account the constructability of rock sockets for the particular job conditions. Publications that cover drilled shaft
construction methods include Greer and Gardner (1986) and
ONeill and Reese (1999). Aspects of construction that are
related to rock sockets are reviewed herein.
72
When relatively stiff soil or weak rock cannot be penetrated efficiently with typical soil drilling tools (e.g., open
helix augers), most contractors will attempt to use a rock
auger. Rock augers are manufactured from thicker metal
plate than soil augers and have cutting teeth. The teeth may
be of the drag bit type, which are effective in cutting rock but
wear rapidly and must be replaced frequently. As a rule of
thumb, these types of teeth are limited to cutting rock of compressive strength up to approximately 48 MPa (7,000 psi), at
which point they dull quickly. Conical-shaped teeth made of
tungsten carbide or other alloys depend on crushing the rock
and are more durable than drag bits, but require considerable
downward force (crowd) to be effective. Figure 50 shows a
rock auger with both types of teeth, to exploit both mechanisms
73
chisel, a metal tool that is wedged between the barrel and the
rock to fracture the core. The core will usually jam into the
barrel and can be lifted out of the hole and then removed by
hammering the suspended barrel (see Figure 48). If the rock is
highly fractured, the core barrel may be removed, followed by
excavation of the fractured rock from the hole. For deep sockets
or for harder rock, double wall core barrels may be used. The
outer barrel is set with teeth, typically roller bits (Figure 54),
while the core is forced into the inner barrel. Compressed air
is circulated between the barrels to remove cuttings.
For very high strength rock (qu 100 MPa) there are few
tools that will excavate efficiently. In these rocks, however,
even a small penetration can provide high axial, and in some
cases lateral, resistance. A shot barrel, in which hard steel
shot is fed into the annular space between the double walls
of the core barrel, may work in such conditions. Grinding action of the shot excavates the rock and water is circulated for
cooling the shot.
Excavation rates with core barrels are typically slow. Although coring may be cost-effective because of the foundation performance benefits achieved, careful attention should
be given to avoiding overly conservative designs that significantly increase the cost of drilled shafts made by unnecessary coring into rock.
Hard rock can also be excavated using downhole hammer
bits. The tool shown in Figure 55 has an array of button-bit
hammers (called a cluster drill) operated independently by
compressed air. Air pressure also lifts the cuttings which are
collected in a calyx basket. On the tool shown in Figure 55,
some of the bits can be rotated outward to create a larger
diameter socket (under reaming) than the casing, and then
retracted to remove the bit. This allows a casing to be installed
directly behind the bit during drilling. Downhole hammers and
cluster drills are generally expensive and require large air compressors to operate. Most contractors will rent this equipment
when needed, which is only cost-effective in very hard rock.
74
The most direct method to determine the performance of fullscale rock-socketed drilled shafts is through field load testing. Clearly there have been advances in engineers ability to
predict rock-socket behavior. However, there will always be
sources of uncertainty in the applicability of analysis methods, in the rock mass properties used in the analysis, and with
respect to the unknown effects of construction. Load testing
provides direct measurement of load displacement response
for the particular conditions of the test foundation, and can
also provide data against which analytical models can be
evaluated and calibrated.
Objectives
75
76
The following case illustrates effective use of conventional axial load test on rock sockets. Zhan and Yin (2000)
describe axial load tests on two shafts for the purpose of confirming design allowable side and base resistance values in
moderately weathered volcanic rock for a Hong Kong transit project. The proposed design end bearing stress (7.5 MPa)
exceeded the value allowed by the Hong Kong Building
Code (5 MPa). One of the objectives of load testing was,
therefore, to demonstrate that a higher base resistance could
be used. The project involved 1,000 drilled shafts; therefore,
proving the higher proposed values offered considerable
potential cost savings.
Figure 58 shows the load test arrangement, consisting of
a loading platform for placement of dead load. Figure 59
shows details of one of the instrumented shafts. Strain gages
were provided at 17 different levels, including 4 levels of
gages in the rock socket. Two telltales were installed, one at
the base of the socket and one at the top of the socket. Shafts
were excavated through overburden soils using temporary
casing to the top of rock. When weathered rock was encountered, a 1.35-m-diameter reverse circulation drill (RCD) was
used to advance to the bearing rock, followed by a 1.05-mdiameter RCD to form the rock socket. For the shaft shown
in Figure 59, the socket was 2 m in length. A permanent,
bitumen-coated casing (to reduce side resistance in the overburden materials) was placed to the top of the socket. The
bottom was cleaned by airlift and concrete placed by tremie
(wet pour).
77
78
hydraulic lines
placement channel
dial gages
Test shaft
SOIL
ROCK
O-cell
79
30
30
upward displacement
of shaft above O-cell
20
25
15
10
5
0
-5
downward displacement
of O-cell base plate
-10
-15
25
upward displ of shaft above O-cell
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-20
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
FIGURE 63 Results of single O-cell load tests: (left) Shaft No. 1; (right) Shaft No. 3 (Gunnink and Kiehne 2002).
fs =
Qoc
BD
(148)
80
where
fs = average unit side resistance (stress),
QOC = O-cell test load,
B = shaft diameter, and
D = socket length.
The degree to which this average unit side resistance is valid
for design of rock sockets loaded at the head depends on the
degree to which side load transfer under O-cell test conditions is similar to conditions under head loading. Detailed
knowledge of site stratigraphy is needed to interpret side load
transfer.
O-cell test results typically are used to construct an equivalent top-loaded settlement curve, as illustrated in Figure 65.
At equivalent values of displacement both components of
load are added. For example, in Figure 65a, the displacement
for both points labeled 4 is 10 mm. The measured upward
and downward loads determined for this displacement are
80
12
60
11
10
Movement (mm)
40
side load-deformation
curve is measured
20
6 7
0
1
-20
7
8
-40
9
8
9
10
11
-60
12
-80
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
(a)
30
25
20
6
5
12
11
10
7
base resistance measured,
side resistance extrapolated
15
4
3
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
added to obtain the equivalent top load for a downward displacement of 10 mm and plotted on a load-displacement
curve as shown in Figure 65b. This procedure is used to
obtain points on the load-displacement curve up to a displacement corresponding to the least of the two values (side or
base displacement) at the maximum test load. In Figure 65a,
this corresponds to side displacement. Total resistance corresponding to further displacements is approximated as follows. For the section of shaft loaded to higher displacement,
the actual measured load can be determined for each value of
displacement up to the maximum test load (in Figure 65a this
is the base resistance curve). The resistance provided by the
other section must be estimated by extrapolating its curve
beyond the maximum test load. In Figure 65a, the side resistance curve is extrapolated. The resulting equivalent toploaded settlement curve shown in Figure 65b is therefore
based on direct measurements up to a certain point, and partially on extrapolated estimates beyond that point.
According to Paikowsky et al. (2004b), most state DOT
geotechnical engineers using O-cell testing tend to accept
the measurements as indicative of drilled shaft performance
under conventional top-down loading. O-cell test results are
applied in design by construction of an equivalent top-load
settlement curve, as illustrated earlier, or by using the
measured unit side and base resistances as design nominal
values. However, some researchers (ONeill et al. 1997;
Paikowsky et al. 2004b) have pointed out differences between O-cell test conditions and top loading conditions that
may require interpretation. The most significant difference is
that compressional loading at the head of a shaft causes compression in the concrete, outward radial strain (Poissons
effect), and a load transfer distribution in which axial load in
the shaft decreases with depth. Loading from an embedded
O-cell also produces compression in the concrete, but a load
transfer distribution in which axial load in the shaft decreases
upward from a maximum at the O-cell to zero at the head of
the shaft. It is possible that different load transfer distributions could result in different distributions of side resistance
with depth and, depending on subsurface conditions, different total side resistance of a rock socket.
In shallow rock sockets under bottom-up (O-cell) loading
conditions, a potential failure mode is by formation of a conical wedge-type failure surface (cone breakout). This type
of failure mode would not yield results equivalent to a shaft
loaded in compression from the top. A construction detail
noted by Crapps and Schmertmann (2002) that could potentially influence load test results is the change in shaft diameter that might exist at the top of a rock socket. A common
practice is to use temporary casing to the top of rock, followed by a change in the tooling and a decrease in the diameter of the rock socket relative to the diameter of the shaft
above the socket. Top-down compression loading produces
perimeter bearing stress at the diameter change as illustrated
in Figure 66, whereas loading from an O-cell at the bottom
of the socket would lift the shaft from the bearing surface.
81
compression
SOIL
change in diameter at
soil/rock interface
ROCK
FIGURE 67 Comparison of load-displacement curves; O-cell
versus FEM (Paikowsky et al. 2004b).
FIGURE 66 Perimeter bearing stress at diameter change
under top loading.
82
an overall program leading to increased use and improved design methods for rock-socketed foundations. The Colorado
DOT has also used O-cell testing to improve its design
procedures for rock-socketed shafts, as documented by AbuHejleh et al. (2003).
Statnamic
The STN load test was developed in the late 1980s by
Berminghammer Foundation Equipment of Hamilton, Ontario. Its use in the U.S. transportation industry has been
supported by FHWA through sponsorship of load testing
programs, as well as tests conducted with an STN device
owned by FHWA for research purposes.
In this test, load is applied to the top of a deep foundation
by igniting a high-energy, fast-burning solid fuel within a
pressure chamber. As the fuel pressure increases, a set of reaction masses is accelerated upward, generating a downward
force on the foundation element equal to the product of the
reaction mass and the acceleration. Loading occurs over a
period of approximately 100 to 200 ms, followed by venting
of the pressure to control the unloading cycle. Load applied
to the foundation is monitored by a load cell and displacement is monitored with a photovoltaic laser sensor. The concept is illustrated schematically in Figure 68. STN equipment
is available for test loads as high as 30 MN.
Processing of the load and displacement time histories is
required to convert the STN measurements into an equivalent,
static load-displacement curve. The analysis accounts for
dynamic effects that may include damping and inertial
effects. The unloading-point method as reported by Horvath
et al. (1993) provides a relatively straightforward method for
determining static resistance using measurements made at the
top of the shaft during a STN test. Test interpretation is also
discussed by Brown (1994) and El Naggar and Baldinelli
(2000).
83
84
shafts might need remediation, dynamic load tests were conducted on 12 of the shafts supporting existing columns using
the pile driving hammer shown in Figure 70. Testing proved
the design capacity of 11 of the 12 shafts tested. This case
also illustrates the need for thorough subsurface investigation when socketing into limestone. In this case, rock elevations were found to be highly variable. Seismic methods
used in combination with borings in the post-failure investigation provided a more detailed geologic model of site
conditions.
Ec
Er 1
2D
B
(149)
85
(150)
(1 + r )
Er =
( S1 S3 )
D
1 + b 2
Eb =
S3
B
1 S S3
tan tan = 2
2 S1 S2
Q
c = ( 2 tan tan + 1) i
BD
86
87
Load cell,
Displacement transducers,
Accelerometers on top of cap or shaft,
Downhole motion sensors,
Resistance-type strain gages, and
Megadac Data Acquisition System.
88
Shaft Group, Load 5 (E-W)
1000
800
1.5
600
400
0.5
200
0
0
-0.5
-200
-1
-400
Load, tons
Statnamic Acceleration
tons
Load
inches / g's
Displacement / Acceleration
2.5
-600
-1.5
-800
-2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
seconds
Time
(a)
Lateral Load versus Translation
140
600
120
500
100
400
80
300
60
200
40
100
20
% Damping
tons
Load
Static
Derived Statnamic
% Damping
Total Resistance (Static + Damping)
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
inches
Tlti
(b)
These topics are considered together because they encompass activities having a single objective: construction of
a high-quality, rock-socketed drilled shaft foundation that
performs in accordance with the design assumptions. As
illustrated in the flow chart diagram of Figure 3, chapter one,
the final design is based on input from three general sources:
(1) site characterization, (2) geotechnical analysis, and
(3) structural analysis and modeling. Plans and specifications
are developed that reflect generally accepted practices based
on the collective experience of the construction and engineering communities. Examples of model specifications
include those given in Chapter 15 of the FHWA Drilled Shaft
Manual (ONeill and Reese 1999), ACI Standard Specification for the Construction of Drilled Piers, ACI 336.1-98
(1998), and specifications developed by state and federal
transportation agencies with extensive experience in drilled
shaft use. In addition, effective specifications will address
issues that are unique to the specific conditions that determine
the final design, including constructability issues which, ideally, are accounted for in all three of the input categories identified previously. In the following paragraphs, these topics are
discussed individually, but in practice they must be integrated
into the design concepts discussed in this synthesis.
Constructability
89
90
casing
Claims for differing site conditions are part of the geotechnical construction field, but measures can be taken to
minimize them. For example, one contractor interviewed for
this study noted that geotechnical reports often place strong
emphasis on rock of the lowest strength, because these layers may control side or base resistances for design. However,
for estimating drilling costs, contractors need information on
rock layers of the highest strength, because that will dictate
the type of drilling and tools needed to bid the job accurately
and to carry out the construction properly. Transportation
agencies might consider surveying contractors to find out
exactly what information contained in their boring logs is
most helpful for bidding on rock-socket jobs, and what addi-
91
about the subsurface conditions and what is required to construct rock sockets successfully.
Inspection and Quality Assurance
include the geotechnical report, boring logs, and communication with the design engineer. For rock sockets, inspectors
should be trained to understand the information presented in
boring logs pertaining to rock. This includes being familiar
with the site and geomaterial characterization methods described in chapter two. Inspectors require basic training in
rock identification, testing, and classification, and should be
familiar with rock coring procedures, the meaning of RQD,
compressive strength of intact rock, and terminology for
describing characteristics of discontinuities, degree of weathering, etc. Inspectors should be aware of design issues such
as whether the shaft is designed for side resistance, base resistance, or lateral resistance, and in which rock layers the
various components of resistance are derived.
Before construction, inspectors should know how the contractor plans to construct the shafts. This requires knowledge
of the tools and methods used for construction in rock. A
valuable aid is the Drilled Shaft Installation Plan, a document
describing in detail the contractors tools and methods of
construction. ONeill and Reese (1999) describe the minimum requirements of an installation plan and recommend
that it be a required submittal by the contractor.
A fundamental design issue is the degree to which the
rock mass over the depth of the socket coincides with the
conditions assumed for design. Therefore, some type of
TABLE 21
INSPECTION ITEMS FOR ROCK SOCKETS
Inspection Responsibility
Knowledge of site
conditions
Knowledge of design
issues
Knowledge of contractors
plan for socket
construction
92
Base of
Socket
Probe
Rod
93
Some of the most difficult conditions for drilled shaft construction and inspection are karstic limestone and residual
profiles that grade from soil to weathered rock to intact rock.
Experiences and approaches to these conditions identified by
the literature review are summarized here.
Shafts in Limestone
94
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIGURE 80 Commonly encountered conditions for shafts in pinnacled limestone (Brown 1990).
95
HORIZONTAL SCALE (FT)
0
930
100
300
B1
10
8
6
12
920
910
500
400
B3
B2
10
31
ZONE I
17
ZONE II
12
16
NX-18%
RQD-0
890
24
C.T.
870
NX-15%
RQD-0
CORING TERMINATED
11
-10
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
18
NX-18%
CORE RECOVERY
16
RQD-82
19
53
ZONE III
50/3"
50/4"
NX-90%
RQD-79
C.T.
860
11
C.T.
10
50/5"
NX-95%
RQD-82
PARTIAL LEGEND
10
18
55
50/3"
900
880
200
ZONE IV
ZONE I
FILL
ZONE II
RESIDUAL SOIL
ZONE III
ZONE IV
ROCK
50/5"
NX-87%
RQD-10
24-HR GROUNDWATER
NX-95%
RQD-51
850
C.T.
ELEVATION (FT)
is drilled to its design base elevation. When refusal is encountered on a boulder that is floating, questions may
arise concerning whether the boulder is an obstruction or
constitutes drilling in rock. Similarly, when sloping bedrock
is first encountered, the volume of material excavated to
reach base elevation may be disputed as to whether it is soil
or rock, and drilling into sloping rock can be difficult. One
approach is to install casing until one edge of the casing hits
rock, then drill a smaller diameter pilot hole into the rock
followed by drilling to the design diameter and advancement
of the casing.
These examples illustrate the challenges that can be encountered in the design and construction of rock-socketed
drilled shafts as a result of certain geologic conditions, as
well as approaches that others have found successful for
addressing such challenges. Every foundation site is unique
geologically, and successful design and construction approaches are those that are adapted to fit the ground conditions. Mother Nature is quite unforgiving to those who behave
otherwise.
SUMMARY
Gardner (1987) reviews design methods for axial loading of drilled shafts in Piedmont profiles, including recommendations for design side and base resistances in rock and
methods used to determine relative load transfer between
side and base. Harris and Mayne (1994) describe load tests
in Piedmont residual soils. ONeill et al. (1996) used the
tests of Harris and Mayne to develop the recommendations
for side resistance in cohesionless IGM from Standard Penetration Test results, as presented in chapter three. Both
Gardner (1987) and Schwartz (1987) outline measures that
can be taken to minimize construction delays and contract
disputes when building rock-socketed shafts in Piedmont
profiles. The principal requirements are: (1) thorough site
investigation, (2) design and construction provisions that
can accommodate the unpredictable variations in subsurface materials and final base elevations, and (3) construction specifications and contract documents that facilitate
field changes in construction methods and shaft lengths.
Successful construction also depends on highly qualified
inspectors and clear communication between design engineers, contractors, and inspectors.
Construction and issues related to constructability are integral parts of drilled shaft foundation engineering. A review
of rock drilling technologies is presented and shows that a
wide variety of equipment and tools is available to contractors for building drilled shafts in rock. The design, manufacturing, and implementation of rock drilling tools is a field
unto itself and it is important for foundation designers to be
knowledgeable about the availability and capability of tools
and drilling machines. Constructability issues are interrelated
with all of the steps shown in the flowchart of Figure 3, depicting the design and construction process for rock-socketed
shafts. Beginning with site characterization and continuing
through final inspection, constructability is taken into account in foundation selection, in design methods through the
effects of construction on side resistance, in critical design
decisions such as whether base resistance will be included,
in writing of specifications pertaining to use of slurry and
bottom cleanout, and in matching inspection tools and procedures to construction methods. The literature review identified many aspects of constructability pertaining to rock
96
Two geologic environments in which rock-socket construction poses special challenges, karstic limestone and
Piedmont residual profiles, are presented to illustrate some
of the practices that lead to successful projects. Matching of
design and construction strategies to ground conditions is the
essence of constructability.
97
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS
98
99
DESIGN FOR LATERAL LOAD
LOAD TESTING
100
Information gathered for this study suggests that development of improved practices for design and construction
of rock-socketed drilled shafts might be achieved through
the following research or wider dissemination of existing
information.
Site Characterization
Structural Design
Structural issues of concern to foundation designers, as identified by the survey, included uncertainty regarding apparently high shearing forces in shafts analyzed using p-y curve
analyses and questions pertaining to moment capacity of
short, rigid sockets. These issues can best be addressed by
rigorous analytical methods in conjunction with load tests on
carefully instrumented shafts in rock. A structural issue that
has yet to be investigated as it pertains to deep foundations is
the effect of confining stress on the strength and stiffness of
reinforced concrete. It may be that concrete strength could be
significantly increased under confining stresses typically encountered over the subsurface depths of many bridge foundations. More economical structural designs may be possible
if this issue is investigated and applied in practice. Permanent
101
102
EQUATION SYMBOLS
ENGLISH LETTERSUPPERCASE
Jn
Jr
Jw
K
Kb
Kir
Ko
Kp
L
LM
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
LV =
LM =
LV =
Ls =
Lt =
M =
N =
N60 =
Nc
Ncr
Nq
N
N
OCR
P
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Pr
Pu
Pz
Q
Q'
Qb
=
=
=
=
=
=
Qc =
Qi =
QOC =
Qs =
Qt =
REC
RF
RMR
RQD
SRF
S
=
=
=
=
=
=
103
104
REFERENCES
Abu-Hejleh, N., M.W. ONeill, D. Hanneman, and W.J. Atwooll, Improvement of the Geotechnical Axial Design
Methodology for Colorados Drilled Shafts Socketed
in Weak Rocks, Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2003-6,
Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 2003,
192 pp.
Acker, W.L., III, Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling and
Core Drilling, Acker Drill Company, Inc., Scranton, Pa.,
1974, 246 pp.
Allen, T.M., Development of Geotechnical Resistance Factors and Downdrag Load Factors for LRFD Foundation
Strength Limit State Design, Publication FHWA-NHI05-052, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., Feb. 2005.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000.
Amir, J.M., Piling in Rock, Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 1986.
Ashour, M., G. Norris, and P. Pilling, Lateral Loading of a
Pile in Layered Soil Using the Strain Wedge Model,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 1998, pp. 303315.
Ashour, M. and G. Norris, Modeling Lateral Soil-Pile Response Based on Soil-Pile Interaction, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126,
No. 5, 2000, pp. 420428.
Ashour, M., G. Norris, S. Bowman, H. Beeston, P. Pilling,
and A. Shamabadi, Modeling Pile Lateral Response in
Weathered Rock, Proceedings, Symposium on Engineering Geology & Geotechnical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2001, pp. 639649.
Barker, R.M., J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K.
Tan, and S.G. Kim, NCHRP Report 343: Manuals for the
Design of Bridge Foundations, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1991, 308 pp.
Barton, N., Review of a New Shear Strength Criterion for
Rock Joints, Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, 1973, pp.
287332.
Barton, N., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1974, pp.
183236.
Basic Geotechnical Description of Rock Masses, International Journal Rock Mechanics, Mineral Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 85110.
Bedian, M.P., Value Engineering During Construction,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 124: Geo-Support
2004, 2004, pp. 5269.
Bermingham, P., C.D. Ealy, and J.K. White, A Comparison
of Statnamic and Static Field Tests at Seven FHWA
Sites, Proceedings, Fifth International Deep Founda-
105
106
Situ 86, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg, Va., 1986, pp. 560568.
Geotechnical Design Manual, Washington State Department
of Transportation, Olympia, 2005 [Online]. Available:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications/
Manuals/2005GDM/GDM.htm [Oct. 2005].
Geotechnical Investigations, Engineering Manual EM
1110-1-1804, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
D.C., 2001.
Geotechnical Manual, Texas Department of Transportation,
Austin, 2000 [Online]. Available: http://manuals.dot.state.
tx.us/dynaweb/colbridg/geo [June 2005].
Goodman, R.E., Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rock, West Publishing Company, St. Paul,
Minn., 1976.
Goodman, R.E., Introduction to Rock Mechanics, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, N.Y., 1980, 478 pp.
Goodman, R.E. and G.-H. Shi, Block Theory and Its Application to Rock Engineering, PrenticeHall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 338 pp. 1985.
Greer, D.M. and W.S. Gardner, Construction of Drilled Pier
Foundations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y., 1986,
246 pp.
Gunnink, B. and C. Kiehne, Capacity of Drilled Shafts in
Burlington Limestone, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 7, 2002,
pp. 539545.
Harris, D.E. and P.W. Mayne, Axial Compression Behavior of Two Drilled Shafts in Piedmont Residual Soils,
Proceedings, International Conference on Design and
Construction of Deep Foundations, Vol. 2, Orlando, Fla.,
1994, pp. 352367.
Hassan, K.M. and M.W. ONeill, Side Load-Transfer
Mechanisms in Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous Rock,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 2, 1997, pp. 145152.
Hassan, K.M., M.W. ONeill, S.A. Sheikh, and C.D. Ealy,
Design Method for Drilled Shafts in Soft Argillaceous
Rock, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 3, 1997, pp. 272280.
Hetenyi, M., Beams on Elastic Foundation, The University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1946.
Heuze, F.E., Scale Effects in the Determination of Rock
Mass Strength and Deformability, Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 34, 1980, pp. 167192.
Heuze, F.E., Suggested Method for Estimating the In-Situ
Modulus of Deformation of Rock Using the NX-Borehole
Jack, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984,
pp. 205210.
Hiltunen, D.R. and M.J.S. Roth, Investigation of Bridge
Foundation Sites in Karst Terrane Via Multi-Electrode
Resistivity, Proceedings, Geotechnical and Geophysical
Site Characterization, A.V. da Fonseca and P.W. Mayne,
Eds., Millpress Science Publishers, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 2004, pp. 483490.
Hirany, A. and F.H. Kulhawy, Conduct and Interpretation of
Load Tests on Drilled Shaft Foundations, Volume 1:
107
Knott, D.L., L.F. Rojas-Gonzales, and F.B. Newman, Current Foundation Engineering Practice for Structures in
Karst Areas, Report FHWA-PA-91-007+90-12, Federal
Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation, Harrisburg, Pa., 1993.
Koutsoftas, D.C., Caisson Socketed in Sound Mica Schist,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 107, No. GT6,
1981, pp. 743757.
Kulhawy, F.H., Geomechanical Model for Rock Foundation Settlement, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 104, No. GT2, 1978, pp. 211227.
Kulhawy, F.H. and J.P. Carter, Settlement and Bearing
Capacity of Foundations on Rock Masses, In Engineering
in Rock Masses, F.G. Bell, Ed., ButterworthHeinemann,
Oxford, England, 1992a, pp. 231245.
Kulhawy, F.H. and J.P. Carter, Socketed Foundations in
Rock Masses, In Engineering in Rock Masses, F.G. Bell,
Ed., ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, England, 1992b,
pp. 509529.
Kulhawy, F.H. and R.E. Goodman, Design of Foundations
on Discontinuous Rock, Proceedings, International
Conference on Structural Foundations on Rock, Vol. 1,
Sydney, Australia, 1980, pp. 209220.
Kulhawy, F.H., C.H. Trautmann, and T.D. ORourke, The
Soil-Rock Boundary: What Is It and Where Is It? Geotechnical Special Publication No. 28: Detection of and
Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface, 1991, pp. 115.
Kulhawy, F.H. and K.-K. Phoon, Drilled Shaft Side Resistance in Clay Soil to Rock, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 38: Design and Performance of Deep
Foundations, 1993, pp. 172183.
Kulhawy, F.H. and W.A. Prakoso, Discussion of End Bearing Capacity of Drilled Shafts in Rock, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 12, 1998, pp. 11061109.
Kulhawy, F.H., W.A. Prakoso, and S.O. Akbas, Evaluation
of Capacity of Rock Foundation Sockets, Alaska Rocks
2005, Proceedings, 40th U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, G. Chen, S. Huang, W. Zhou, and J. Tinucci,
Eds., Anchorage, Alaska, June 2005, 8 pp. (CD-ROM).
Ladanyi, B., Friction and End Bearing Tests on Bedrock
for High Capacity Rock Socket Design: Discussion, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 14, 1977, pp. 153155.
LaFronz, N.J., D.E. Peterson, R.D. Turton, and S. Anderson,
Geologic Characterization for Bridge Foundations, Colorado River Bridge, Hoover Dam Bypass Project, 54th
Highway Geology Symposium, Burlington, Vt., 2003.
Lai, P., Determination of Design Skin Friction for Drilled
Shafts Socketed in the Florida Limestone, Notes of
Florida DOT Design Conference, Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, 1998, pp. 140146.
Littlechild, B.D., S.J. Hill, I. Statham, G.D. Plumbridge, and
S.C. Lee, Determination of Rock Mass Modulus for
Foundation Design, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 97: Innovations and Applications in Geotechnical
Site Characterization, P.W. Mayne and R. Hryciw, Eds.,
2000, pp. 213228.
108
109
110
APPENDIX A
Survey Respondents
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
111
APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire and Responses
The survey questionnaire is presented in the following pages. Responses to each question are summarized below each question. Some agencies did not respond to every question.
112
QUESTIONNAIRE
NCHRP TOPIC 36-12
USE OF ROCK-SOCKETED DRILLED SHAFTS
FOR HIGHWAY STRUCTURE FOUNDAT IONS
The purpose of Synthesis Topic 36-12 is to gather information on how these issues have been addressed in the
design of highway structures. To accomplish the objective, there will be a literature review, survey of bridge owners
from state departments of transportation (DOTs) and toll authorities, and interviews.
This questionnaire is designed to be completed by the state DOT Geotechnical Engineer, assuming that individual
has the most knowledge regarding the issues identified above. However, it is recognized that practice varies
between states and that other branches within a state DOT may have considerable involvement in drilled shaft
engineering. In particular, structural (bridge) engineers responsible for superstructure design may also be involved
in foundation design. Therefore, it is recommended that Part V of this questionnaire (Structural Analysis) be
completed by the state Bridge Engineer. In addition, it is recommended that Part IV (Design for Axial and Lateral
Load) be reviewed by the state Bridge Engineer.
Several questions refer to intermediate geomaterials (IGM) as distinguished from rock. For purposes of this survey,
these two materials are defined as follows:
IGM
Rock
State:
Zip:
113
Phone:
Fax:
e-mail:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
e-mail:
Phone: 307-766-4265
Fax:
307-766-2221
e-mail: turner@uwyo.edu
After completing the survey, if there are issues pertaining to rock-socketed drilled shafts that you believe are
important but that are not addressed adequately by the questionnaire, please feel free to contact the author directly.
Part II: Defining the Use of Rock-Socketed Drilled Shafts by Your Agency
1.
On approximately how many projects per year (average) does your agency deal with drilled shaft
foundations socketed into rock or IGMs?
None*
(1)
New Brunswick
110
(19)
AZ, AL, AR, CT, HI, ID, IL, KY, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, SD, TN,
UT, VT, WA
1020
(7)
Please indicate the types of rock or intermediate geomaterials that your agency has dealt with when using
rock-sockets. (Check all that apply.)
Igneous rock types
Granite
Rhyolite
Obsidian
Diorite
Conglomerate
Sandstone
Mudstone/Shale
Limestone
Slate
Phyllite
Schist
Amphibolite
8
5
12
3
114
Andesite
Gabbro
Basalt
Diabase
Peridotite
Other (describe)
7
5
11
4
1
0
Dolomite
15
Chalk
4
Other (describe) 3
Gneiss
Marble
Quartzite
Serpentinite
Other (describe)
12
2
6
3
2
Intermediate Geomaterials:
claystones, siltstones,
uncemented sandstones
New Jersey
v. dense sands with N > 50
New Hampshire glacial till
New Mexico
Santa Fe Formation
Colorado
(N > 75), of the Rio Grand
Florida
Rift (indurated, cemented,
Georgia
sands, silts, clay)
Illinois
North Carolina weathered rock
Oregon
very soft mudstones,
Iowa
highly weathered
Kentucky
sandstones, weakly
Massachusetts
cemented conglomerates
Michigan
Texas
clay/shales
Minnesota
Utah:
weak shales and
mudstones
Missouri
Vermont:
glacial till
Washington
Has significant deposits of glacial origin. Many have been overridden and overconsolidated by
continental glaciation turning them into IGMs by the definition on page 1. A figure, which can be
accessed at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pdf/ri33.pdf contains the unit descriptions. The first four
units are encountered in 75% of our shafts.
Alabama
Arkansas
California
clay-shale
hardclay (8 tsf)
mudstone, sandstone, siltstone,
phyllite, slate, and weathered rock
claystone, siltstone, weakly cemented sandstone
weathered limestone
partially weathered rock
weathered limestone, hard clay/shale,
cemented sand/sandstone
shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, dolomite
weathered shale
till
soft shale, hardpan
noncemented sandstone,
highly weathered granite
softshale
Montana
tuff
interbedded limestone/shale
argillite
iron ore, coal
Minnesota:
New Mexico:
North Carolina:
Oregon:
meta-graywacke
gypsum
partially cemented rock
diatomaceous siltstone
Indicate the range of rock-socket diameters and lengths used on your agency's projects.
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
(310 ft)
(3.510 ft)
(37.5 ft)
(46 ft)
(2.56 ft)
(3 ft min. to 12 ft max.)
(38 ft)
(34.5 ft)
(28 ft)
(2.510 ft)
(38 ft)
(1.58 ft)
(2.54 ft)
115
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
(4.57.5 ft)
(Typical 2.54 ft; extreme case10 ft)
(35 ft)
(310 ft)
Ver mont
(510 ft)
Washington
(310 ft, with understanding that 6 ft
and greater may need specialized equipment
or methods)
What group or person in your agency has primary responsibility for design of rock-socketed drilled shafts?
(If more than one group within your agency is responsible, please describe briefly the division of tasks
below.)
Geotechnical Branch (30)
AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA
Geology Branch (4)
AZ, CA, KS, MN
Bridge Engineering (structural) (20)
AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, OR, SD, TN, UT, VT
Outside Consultant (11)
CT, FL, HI, ID, IL, IA, KY, MA, NB, NM, PR
Other (explain): Iowa (Input from FHWA)
Division of tasks (if applicable):
AL: Geotechnical is responsible for axial capacity. Bridge is responsible for lateral stability.
CT: All our drilled shaft projects to date have been designed by outside consultants. If we were doing the
design in-house, the responsibility would be shared between the geotech and bridge designer.
CO: Geotech provides geotechnical design parameters. Bridge performs design.
FL: AxialGeotechnical; LateralStructural.
GA: GeotechnicalSelection of shafts is recommended foundation type or alternate; bearing pressures, rocksocket length, and tip elevations. BridgeSelection of shaft diameters, lateral analysis, and possible revision
of tip elevations.
KS: Geotechs set base of shaft elevation and recommend side shear and end bearing strengths.
116
KY: Geotechnical Branch and/or Geotechnical ConsultantGeotech investigation, axial capacities, tip
elevations. Division of Bridge Design and/or Structures ConsultantStructural design and detailing, structure
plans.
MA: GeotechnicalDimensions and capacities based on loadings and soil/rock properties. Structuralrebar,
concrete, connection designs.
MI: Geotechnical characterizes rock formation and determines rock-socket diameter and length. Bridge
Design determines shaft location, shaft loading, and sizes reinforcement.
MN: Geotech determines design bearing capacities and soils and rock properties with consultation with
geology. Structures designs final shaft dimensions.
MO: Geotechnical Office provides design criteria and evaluates shaft design based on materials encountered
and proposed shaft configuration. Bridge Engineering proposes the layout of foundation units and designs the
shaft itself (size, steel configuration, etc.).
NM: Geotechnical Section approves outside consultant designs.
UT: Geotech Branchrock resistance, L-pile; Structuresstructural design.
VT: Geotechnical capacity and lateral analysis is done by the geotechnical branch and structural design is
done by the structures group.
WA: Geotechs assess capacity and settlement and provide p-y input parameters to bridge office. The
structural designer in the bridge office performs the structural design of the shaft assessing shear, moments,
and rebar/concrete requirements. They also perform the seismic design using the geotechs p-y parameters.
5.
In the next 3 years, do you anticipate that the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by your agency will:
Increase (8)
ID, KS, MA, MO, NB, PR, SC, TN
Remain approximately the same (25)
AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KY, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR, SD,
TX, UT, VT, WA
Decrease (none)
6.
Please add any comments you feel would be useful, pertaining to the use of rock-socketed drilled shafts by
your agency.
CA: Most result in claims due to the requirement to include Differing Site Conditions on all contracts.
IA: Use of drilled shafts has been more frequent in past 23 years (above historic use), but may fall off
again within next 23 years.
KS: Used on high tower lighting and sign structure footings. Used as a contractors option on some
structures. Ease of construction around highway and railway facilities.
MS: Combination of new codes and loadings, issues of scour, and extreme events, are driving the use of
deep and/or rock-socketed shafts.
MO: Use is increasing in part due to more consultant bridge design and MoDOT bridge designers gaining
more experience in shaft design. Shaft design is cost-competitive with driven pile in many cases and
construction in urban areas causes less noise and vibration than driven pile.
New Brunswick: We are beginning to recognize the potential of this type of foundation as an option for
bridge foundations in our province. We currently have two projects in the design stage that will use drilled
shaft foundations. Where we have limited design experience in-house; most of the questions in the survey
are left unanswered. We look forward to reviewing the results as a way to see how other agencies approach
these designs, as we move toward the consideration of drilled shafts as an option in the future.
NH: Emphasize that the design of drilled shafts should include consideration of the drilled shaft
construction methods and constructability issues.
OR: Most of our shafts are socketed into bedrock, either with or without end bearing resistance. Many
times we need rock embedment to resist high lateral loads associated with high seismic loading conditions,
sometimes coupled with soil liquefaction.
SC: Finding some way to equate different rock drilling rigs/equipment capabilities to varying rock
strengths.
SD: 99% of the drilled shafts done in this state are done in shale bedrock.
117
WA: When we want to have a rock socket of a certain length and recognize that the rock may be variable
in elevation we include the following provision in our shaft special provision. With this special in place,
the contractor can tie the reinforcing cage prior to excavating, excavate to rock, construct the rock socket,
and trim the cage to fit. Excavation to tip elevation, cage placement, and the concrete pour can be complete
in one shift this way. We pay for the steel that is cut off from the bottom of the cage, but feel that it is well
worth the investment by lowering our risk of a blow-in or caving as the shaft does not have to sit open for
days while the cage is tied. When the contract requires a minimum penetration into a bearing layer, as
opposed to a specified shaft tip elevation, and the bearing layer elevation at each shaft cannot be accurately
determined, add subsection 3.05.E as follows: For those shafts with a specified minimum penetration into
the bearing layer and no specified tip elevation the Contractor shall furnish each shaft steel reinforcing bar
cage, including access tubes for cross-hole sonic log testing in accordance with subsection 3.06 of this
Special Provision, 20% longer than specified in the plans. The Contractor shall add the increased length to
the bottom of the cage. The contractor shall trim the shaft steel reinforcing bar cage to the proper length
prior to placing it into the excavation. If trimming the cage is required and access tubes for cross-hole
sonic log testing are attached to the cage, the Contractor shall either shift the access tubes up the cage or cut
the access tubes provided that the cut tube ends are adapted to receive the watertight cap as specified.
Check the methods used by your agency to determine depth to bedrock for the purpose of drilled shaft
foundation engineering.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refusal
(22)
AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, MA,
MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, UT, VT
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) refusal:
(3)
KS, MN, MO
How does your agency distinguish between rock, soil, and intermediate geomaterials?
Defined in the same way as stated on page 1 of this questionnaire
(24)
AL, AR, CA, CO,
FL, HI, ID, IL, KS, KY, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NM, OR, PR, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA
Other: summarize below
AZ: Typically, we classify as either soil or rock only by the use of test borings.
118
CT: We generally do not try to quantify IGMs. We may have some glacial tills/weathered
bedrocks overlying a hard bedrock that would be an IGM, but we do not usually spend much time
defining its engineering properties for the design of drilled shafts.
CO: Some very weathered claystone is classified as rock even if it is weaker than IGM, as
described in the background and purpose section above.
GA: Soil-drilled and sampled with earth augers, SPT < 50, drilled shaft bearing pressure < 30
40 ksf; IGM-drilled with earth and/or rock augers, SPT > 50, drilled shaft bearing pressure >
40 ksf, < 75 ksf; rock material below auger refusal sampled with diamond core drilling, drilled
shaft bearing pressure > 75 ksf.
IL: Experience combined with field observation of drilling operation (difficulties, change of
drilling tools, etc.)
IA: Classify as IGM? Rock if of sedimentary rock geologic origin. Classify as soil if of
glacial, alluvial, similar deposition.
KY: We have very few IGMs and if we have them, they are typically a weathered zone of shale in
a transition from residual soil to interbedded limestone and shale. This material is typically
neglected for drilled shaft design.
MA: We have a clear distinction between rocks and soils, based on coring use.
ME:
NH: For classification purposes on test boring logs, differentiation of bedrock vs. IGM or soil
based on geologic interpretation of boring samples. For drilled shaft analysis, would generally use
the definitions on page 1 (e.g., weathered bedrock would be classified on the boring log as
bedrock, but would be analyzed as an IGM).
NJ: Based on the coring results, RQD and recovery, and engineering judgment; e.g., RQD < 30%
may be considered as IGM not sound rock.
NC: Definition of RockSPT and refusalRock is defined as a continuous intact natural
material in which the penetration rate with a rock auger is less than 2 in. (50 mm) per 5 min of
drilling at full crowd force. This definition excludes discontinuous loose natural materials such as
boulders and man-made materials such as concrete, steel, timber, etc.
TX: Our design methodology does not require specific designation of rock, soil, or IGM. Design
is generally based on the strength testing, regardless of material designation.
The following is a list of rock properties that may be required or recommended to apply design methods specified in
the FHWA Drilled Shaft Manual, as well as for other published design methods used for rock-socketed drilled
shafts:
=
=
=
=
qu
RQD
RC
Ecore
For each rock property, check the appropriate box indicating whether your agency determines this property
for rock-socket design and, if so, the method used to determine the property:
qu
Always
Never
Varies
Always: (23) AL, AZ, CT, FL, HI, ID, IL, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NJ, NM, OR, SC, SD, TN,
UT, VT, WA
Never: (0)
Varies : (10) AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, KY, NH, NC, PR, TX
119
Method:
ASTM D2938 or AASHTO T-226: Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(14)
AL, AZ, IA, KY, MN, MO, NH, NM, OR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT
Point Load Tests and/or Uniaxial Compression of intact core:
(3)
MA, MI, WA
Maine (ASTM D7012-04) ??
RQD
Always
Never
Va ries
Always: (28) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ,
NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA
Never: (1) SD
Varies: (3) FL, KY, TX
RC
Always
Never
Va ries
Always
Never
Va ries
Always
Never
Va ries
120
Always
Never
Varies
Always: none
Never: (29) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ,
NM, OR, PR, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA
Varies : (3) KS, NC, TN
c'i and 'i
Always
Never
Varies
Always: none
Never: (24) AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, PR, SC, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VT, WA
Varies : (8) AZ, CA, CO, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR
10.
List below any in situ test methods that are used by your agency to correlate with rock or IGM properties or
to correlate directly to rock-socket design parameters (e.g., side or end bearing resistance).
In Situ Test
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
State
CA
HI
IL
MO
NH
WA
FL
AZ
CA
MN
OR
MA
CA
TX
Indicate by marking the boxes whether your agency uses any of the following tools for evaluating
characteristics of rock below base elevation:
Coring into the rock below the bottom of the shaft after the excavation to base
elevation is complete; if so, to what depth?
AZ: 3B or minimum of 10 ft
AL: typically 10 ft unless specified otherwise
FL: >10 ft
GA: 6 ft
MO: 10 ft below the bottom of the shaft for end bearing design; not required when designed for side
friction only
MT: 50 ft
NJ: not stated
NM: 3 diameters
NC: 5 ft
TX: at least 5 ft deep or a depth equal to the shaft diameter, whichever is greater.
121
Coring into rock below bottom elevation prior to excavating the shaft.
(27) AL, AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, PR, TN, UT, VT, WA
Inspection of core holes at the bottom of the socket using feeler rods.
(5) AL, GA, MA, NC, TN
Inspection of core holes using fiberoptic cameras.
(5) AZ, NJ, NM, NC, UT
Other:
CA: Visually inspect drilled hole and cores and/or cuttings that are removed.
IL: Visual inspection and classification of rock core by an experienced geologist.
ME: Camera inspection of rock-socket base and extending borings during design stage to depth
below expected bottom of rock socket.
NC: 10 lb weight, SID camera, or use temporary casing to inspect the base by the engineer or the
contractor.
SC: Corings into rock below shaft bottom during design represent expected rock below base.
UT: Visual inspection; many times, the rebar cage is designed to go to the bottom of the boring (in
shorter shafts)this verifies depth.
12. If your agency has experience in the design and construction of rock sockets with any of the materials listed
below, please check the appropriate box and provide information on test methods (field or laboratory) that
you have used to characterize the material properties
Weak lime rock
(11)
AZ, FL, GA, IA, KS, MN, MO, NC, SC, TX, UT
(14)
AL, AZ, CA, GA, IA, KS, KY, MI, MO, NM, SC, SD, TX, UT
122
MoDOT
NM: qu/triax shear; AASHTO T296; Alpha method
SC: Triaxial; load tests
SD: Soil strengths; unconfined compression test; skin resistance compared to pull test on steel pk rod
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-118-E, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual
correlations
UT: Same as mentioned in Question 9
Weathered and highly fractured rock
(20)
AL, AZ, CA, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, NM, NC, OR, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA
State: Property; Test Method; Correlations Used
AR: Visual observations of rock condition
GA: Coring, RQD, compression tests
HI: Strength; unconfined compression
IA: Strength skin friction/end bearing; lab UC on cores and O-cell tests
KS: As above
KY: We may use Slake Durability Index in shale and sometimes sandstone
MA: RMR/qu
MI: Unconfined compressive strength; Point Load Test ASTM D5731; correlations included in test
procedure
MN: Strength and stiffness; SPT or pressuremeter
MO: RQD
NM: phi'; N60; Mayne and Harris
OR: Shear strength; SPT, judgment based on experience, often treated as very dense granular soil;
Meyerhof or Peck, Hanson, Thornburg
SC: SPT
SD: Soil strengths; unconfined compression test; skin resistance compared to pull test on steel pk rod
TX: qu, skin friction, point bearing; ASTM, Tex-132-E; TxDOT Geotechnical Manual correlations
UT: Same mentioned in Question 9
WA: RQD and unconfined compressive strength; drilling and Point Load
Karst
(9)
(7)
(11)
123
Identify any other issues pertaining to IGM or rock characterization that you think should be addressed by
the Synthesis.
MO: Limited Osterberg load cell testing has indicated that we significantly overdesign shafts in IGMs
based on compressive strength values from qu testing. We need low cost in situ or other test methods for
obtaining ultimate capacities in IGMs.
NC: NCDOT and the NC State University conducted research to determine p-y curves for soft weathered
rock loaded horizontally.
OR: In Question 9, is anyone actually measuring or estimating the s and m dimensions of the rock
mass for the Carter and Kulhawy equation? Also, is anyone estimating borehole roughness and using the
Horvath (1983) equation? We are not because we have no real way of knowing if this can be accomplished
in the field.
UT: How are states handling discontinuities in design; how are strength values of the discontinuities being
determined, etc.?
WA: In Washington State, our shaft lengths are rarely designed to carry the applied axial loads. Most
shafts have very significant lateral capacity demand owing to earthquake loading. Tip elevations are often
set to meet lateral capacity requirements. Very little information is available on the lateral capacity or
lateral behavior of shafts in IGMs subjected to lateral loads. The effects of group loading in IGMs are also
not well-documented.
124
When designing for axial load of rock-socketed shafts, does your agency account for:
Both side and base resistances
(25)
AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MI,
MN, MO, MT, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA
Side resistance only
(10)
(7)
Comments:
AZ: Rely mainly on side resistance with reduced end bearing.
CA: Depends on anticipated methods of construction.
IL: Depends on the elastic deformation. Generally, not both side and end.
MO: Evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Typically end bearing only in hard rock and side resistance only
in alternating hard and soft rock layers.
NH: Rock-socket lengths typically controlled by lateral load with sufficient geotechnical capacity provided
by side shear only. Would consider using a portion of the end bearing geotechnical capacity in
combination with full side shear, if needed, to avoid extending socket length beyond what may be
needed for lateral loads.
NC: Depends on our design; we might use base or side resistance but most of the time we use both.
OR: Combine side and base resistance only in very ductile rock formations as described in the FHWA
Drilled Shaft Design Manual.
TN: Geotech Section provides parameters for both. Structure designer decides which to use.
UT: In wet conditions we will, many times, discount base resistance; with the current LRFD code we have
been using either side resistance only (most of the time) or base resistance, based on deflection.
15.
For calculating side resistance of rock sockets, please indicate the reference(s) associated with the
method(s) used by your agency (mark all that apply):
O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-0 25, Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods
(26)
AL, AZ, CA, CT, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC,
OR, PR, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA
Horvath and Kenney (1979)
(8)
CA, HI, ID, IL, ME, OR, SC, TN
Rowe and Armitage (1984)
(1)
NM
Carter and Kulhawy (1988)
(6)
CA, IL, ME, NC, SC, WA
Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)
(6)
AZ: (AASHTO 2002)
KS: (Results from O-cell tests)
FL: McVay et al. (1992)
NH: (2002 AASHTO bridge code)
125
OR (not stated)
TX (TxDOT Design MethodSee Chap. 4 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (website)
16.
What, if any, computer programs are used by your agency for analysis of rock-socket response to axial
loading?
SHAFT (14)
AL, AZ, CA, GA, KS, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NC, OR, PR, SC, UT
FBPIER (6)
CT, FL, MN, NC, TN, VT
ROCKET (0)
CUFAD (0)
Other (name of program) (4)
FL: FB Deep
IL: In-house spreadsheet based on Pells and Turner
KY: In-house spreadsheets
TX: WinCoreTxDOT program for the design of drilled shafts
17.
Specify the range of values used by your agency for either Factor of Safety (FOS) or Resistance Factor (s)
applied to rock-socket ultimate side resistance in design (if applicable, specify by rock type).
AL:
AZ:
CA:
CT:
FOS 3.0
All, FOS 2.5
Hard rock, FOS 2.02.5 or s 1 or 0.75
AASHTO ASD, LFD, or LRFD recommended
values regardless of rock type
FL: By AASHTO LRFD
GA: Weak IGM or hard granite FOS 2.5
HI: Tuff, s 0.65
ID: Igneous (basalt), s 0.550.65
IL: All, FOS 2.5
IA: IGM and Rock, FOS 22.5
KY: All, FOS 2 (if load tested) to 3
MA: All, FOS 22.5 or s 0.550.65
ME: Schist, FOS 2.5
18.
For calculating base resistance of rock sockets, please indicate the reference(s) associated with the
method(s) used by your agency (mark all that apply):
O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and Design Methods
(24)
AL, AR, CA, CT, GA, ID, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC,
OR, PR, UT, VT, WA
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (1979)
(3)
CA, IL, ME
Zhang and Einstein (1998)
(2)
ID, MA
Carter and Kulhawy (1988)
(3)
AR, CA, WA
Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)
AZ: AASHTO 2002
KS: O-cell tests results
KY: Experience and judgment
126
Specify the range of values used by your agency for either Factor of Safety (FOS) or Resistance Factor (s)
applied to rock-socket ultimate base resistance in design:
AL:
AR:
AZ:
CA:
CT:
FOS 3.0
Sandstone or shale, FOS 2.5
All, FOS 2.5
All, FOS 2.0 or s 1 or 0.75
AASHTO ASD, LFD, or LRFD recommended
values regardless of rock type
FL: Side/end: 0.55; side only: 0.60
GA: Weak IGM or hard granite, FOS 2.5
ID: Igneous (basalt), s 0.5
IL: All, FOS 2.5
IA: IGM and rock, FOS 22.5
KY: All, FOS 2 (if load tested) to 3
MA: All, FOS 22.5 or s 0.5
ME: Schist, FOS 2.5
20.
If you include both side and base resistances in design of rock sockets, explain briefly how you account for
the relative contribution of each to the socket axial resistance
CA: Must determine the amount of each that can be mobilized at our allowable movement at the top of the
pile.
CT: The relative contributions would be based on the computed displacement/strain of the drilled shaft. If
load test data were available, the strain compatibility would be validated or refined based on the
actual test data.
FL: Based on compatibility.
IL: For weak IGM.
IA: Both are typically limited by settlement criteria for both allowable and ultimate loads.
KS: In good hard rock most of the load is stripped off in side shear. In shales, we assume that side shear
and end bearing act together; either O-cell testing at site or extrapolation of previous testing.
KY: Evaluate strain compatibility if O-cell load test is run. If no load test, use higher FS (3).
ME: Two projects were designed in accordance with AASHTO 4.6.5.3, assuming that axial loads are
carried solely by end resistance, as the strains required for full mobilization of both end and side
resistance is incompatible. This design approach was later altered on one project to assume
conservative, simultaneous mobilization of both end and side frictional resistance. That design
approach ignored side resistance in the upper 5 to 15 ft may (based on a minimum required value of
RQD and qu, determined by the geotechnical engineer). For the remainder of the side walls, partial
contribution is assumed, in addition to partial mobilization of full end bearing.
MI: Seek to design socket to have side friction capacity 2.0 to 2.5 times applied load. When end bearing
contribution is added, seek to show FS greater than or equal to 3.0.
NM: Osterberg and Gill (length/modulus ratio).
NC: This assumption will depend on engineering judgment and the method of construction.
OR: According to methods described in FHWA manual; determine the resistance available from the side
and base independently based on a given relative shaft settlement and then add them together.
SC: Assume side fully mobilized and 5% diameter settlement not necessary to mobilize end resistance in
rock.
TN: Geotech Section opinion is that with the rock type and strength we have and using a safety factor of
2.5, a relatively small mobilization of side and end bearing occurs; therefore, it is okay to use a
combination of both. Structures Designer typically uses just one or the other.
127
TX: TxDOT Design MethodSee Chap. 4 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (website cited above).
WA: See the attached pdf discussing WSDOT procedures for designing drilled shafts in rock and IGMs.
21.
When a bridge is supported on a shallow footing that is supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft (as
opposed to a mono shaft), does your design procedure account for the contribution of the footing to the
foundation capacity?
Ye s
(none)
No
(25)
AL, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM,
NC, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA
Not applicable
(6)
If you answered Yes, please provide a brief description of your analysis to account for the footing
contribution: (none)
22.
For analysis of rock-socketed shafts under lateral loading, please indicate the methods and/or references
associated with methods used by your agency (mark all that apply).
Equivalent Cantilever Method (Davisson 1970)
(5)
(5)
(none)
Zhang, Ernst, and Einstein (2000) Nonlinear Analysis of Laterally Loaded Rock-Socketed
Shafts
(1)
MA
Reese, L.C. (1997) Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Weak Rock
(8)
GA, ID, MI, MT, NJ, NC, OR, TX
Carter and Kulhawy (1992) Analysis of Laterally Loaded Shafts in Rock
(1)
NJ
Other (please cite reference or provide a brief description)
ME: FB Pier evaluation
SC: Some lateral load resisting
WA: S-Shaft Program developed by M. Ashour and G. Norris of UNR along with J.P. Singh of
J.P. Singh & Associates. Model is based on strain wedge theory
23.
What, if any, computer programs are used by your agency for analysis of rock-socket response to lateral
loading?
LPILEPLUS
(23)
AL, AZ, CA, GA, HI, ID, IA, KY, MA, MI, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM,
NC, OR, PR, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA
COM624P
(17) AR, CA, CT, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NJ, NC, OR, PR, TX, VT
FBPIER
(8)
128
If you use the p-y method of analysis, describe briefly how you determine the p-y relationships for rock
Published correlations between rock properties and p-y curve parameters
(4)
CA, KY, NJ, VT
Reference(s):
On projects completed by your agency, which of the following design considerations control rock-socket
length (approximately)?
Axial capacity
AL
AZ
CA
CT
HI
ID
IL
FL
Not really
99%
70%
50%
100%
100%
50%
70%
KS
KY
ME
MA
MI
MN
MT
50%
30%
100%
30%
50%
90%
50%
NJ
NM
NC
OR
SC
SD
TX
UT
65%
80%
30%
35%
40%
100%
95%
80%
KY:
60%
NC:
70%
129
AZ:
AR:
CA:
CT:
GA:
IL:
KS:
FL:
1%
100%
20%
50%
10%
40%
50%
30%
MA:
MI:
MN:
MT:
NH:
NJ:
NM:
60%
50%
10%
50%
90%
35%
10%
OR:
SC:
TN:
TX:
UT:
VT:
WA :
60%
60%
5%
20%
100%
100%
IL:
KY:
10%
10%
MA:
10%
Construction-related
CA:
GA:
10%
90%
Please identify any other issues pertaining to rock-socket analysis/design that you feel should be addressed
in this synthesis.
FL: In karst, check for voids below tip.
IL: Bureau of Bridges and Structures, and consultants.
KS: Pertaining to Question 17, at the LFD load, the settlement should be less than some acceptable value.
We are using an arbitrary value of approximately 14 in. This will vary depending on the bridge type
and span length.
MA: The design/analysis of highway structures foundation (traffic signals, etc.). Construction practices
and QA/QC and their influences on design assumptions.
NH: Provide additional guidance for using side shear and end bearing in combination and provide
simplification of side resistance equations for cohesive soils contained in FHWA-IF-99-025.
OR: What agencies are using the AASHTO methods for drilled shaft design in rock?
UT: Concerns with appropriate lateral analysis methods; that is, is LPILE appropriate to be using with rock
sockets?
What branch or group within your agency is responsible for structural design of rock-socketed drilled
shafts?
AL:
AZ:
AR:
CA:
Bridge Bureau
Bridge Group
Bridge Design
Division of Engineering Services/
Structure Design
CT: No drilled shaft design has been done
with in-house engineering staff
GA: Office of Bridge Design
HI: Bridge Design Section or Structural Consultants
ID: Bridge Design
130
28.
Mark all of the applicable references/codes used by your agency in the structural design of rock-socketed
drilled shafts:
O'Neill and Reese (1999) Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-0 25, Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and Design Methods
(15)
AR, CA, CT, FL, ID, IA, KS, KY, MA, NH, NJ, NC, OR, PR, VT
ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(3)
IL, NJ, WA
AASHTO, Bridge Design Specifications
(26)
AZ, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OR,
SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA
ACI 336, Design and Construction of Drilled Piers
(2)
NJ, WA
29.
For structural design of drilled shafts, does your agency currently use Load Factor Design (LFD), Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), or Allowable Stress Design (ASD)?
SLD (allowable stress, or Service Load Design)
LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design)
LFD (Load Factor Design)
Mixed approach (SLD for foundation capacity and LFD or LRFD for load calculation)
SLD:
(7)
LRFD: (8)
LFD:
(6)
Mixed: (10)
(a) stated mixed only, no explanation: MN, NH, OR, SD, VT
(b) SLD for foundation capacity and LFD or LRFD for load calculation: KY, IL, IA, NJ, TN
30.
For structural design purposes, how would you best describe the analysis method used to obtain the
distribution of moment and shear with depth?
A point of fixity is assumed; shaft is then treated as a structural beam-column.
(11) CT, KS, KY, MA, NJ, NM, NC, SD, TN, TX, UT
Soil/Structure Interaction analysis is conducted using one of the following computer codes:
p-y method by COM624 or LPILEPlus
(21) AZ, AR, CA, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, PR, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA
FBPIER
(5)
131
Other
Elasticity solution
(2)
(1)
KS
Numerical methods such as finite element, boundary element, or finite difference specify
computer program:
none
Other method (explain briefly).
NM: Interaction with Geotechnical Section.
TN: Triangular stress distribution limited to side bearing capacity of rock and McCorkle side resistance
equations.
TX: Point of fixity is used for simple, typical structures. P-y method is used for more complex
structures.
31.
Please indicate whether you have encountered difficulties associated with the design or analysis issues
listed below and, if so, summarize the circumstances (shaft dimensions, depth of soil over rock, rock or
IGM type):
Unexpectedly high computed shear in the rock socket when using the p-y method of analysis.
CA: When the moments go from a maximum to zero over a relatively short length, then the
corresponding shear demands that are reported are large.
Difficulties or questions in applying p-y analysis to relatively short socket lengths
CA, IA, NM
NH: One question is whether the drilled shaft length can be terminated even though the p-y
analysis indicates some minor shear, moment, or deflection at the base of the shaft.
Questions regarding transfer of moment to the rock socket or development length
for reinforcing bars extending into the rock socket.
IA, MA
32.
Please identify any other issues pertaining to structural analysis/design that you feel should be addressed in
this synthesis.
MA: Should seismic design of rock-socket length be adequate to develop full plastic hinge moment
in reinforced concrete shaft?
OR: Not specifically related to rock sockets, but a design with about 6070 ft of overlying silt was
difficult to analyze. Resulting moments at superstructure were opposite direction of what would
be expected, did not tend to converge on a solution during seismic modeling runs. I chased it all
over the place (using LPILE, WinSTRUDL, ODOT BRIG2D software).
Indicate whether the measures described below are included in construction specifications for rock or IGM
sockets designed by your agency:
Roughening of the sides of the socket by grooving or rifling
Restrictions on the use of slurry in sockets
(6)
(14)
132
CA, FL (no polymer), GA, HI, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, NM, NC, TX, UT, VT
Specifications for rock excavation by blasting (4)
34.
Does your agency specify requirements for cleanliness at the bottom of the excavation prior to
concrete placement?
Ye s
(28) AL, AZ, AR, CA, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, MT, NH, NJ,
NM, NC, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA
No
(1)
CT
133
Does your agency use construction specifications or special provisions that account for construction of
Ye s
No
sockets in a particular rock type?
Yes:
No:
(25)
Have you observed any methods, equipment, or materials used for socket construction that you believe are
a source of construction problems?
Ye s
No
134
Yes :
(10)
No:
(16)
AL, AZ, AR, CT, GA, HI, ID, IL, IA, ME, MA, MN, OR, SC, TX, WA
Please identify any other construction-related issues for rock or IGM sockets that you believe should be
addressed in this synthesis.
FL: What is rock, where does it start, quality.
KS: Pertaining to Question 35Our special provision accounts for a wet or dry pour (cased or
uncased) rather than rock type.
MA: Define Top of Rock, which generally can be a discrepancy between borings and
construction drilling.
NH: Effect of slurry on side friction.
OR: If during construction the top of rock elevation is found to be different than what was
assumed in design, what is the effect? How different does it have to be to have a significant effect
on design?
38.
Indicate whether your agency has used any of the following field load testing methods on rock-socketed
drilled shafts.
Conventional static axial load test
(7)
(5)
(18)
CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME,
MA, MN, NJ, NM, NC, PR, SC, TX
(1)
SC
(6)
(3)
AL, FL, SC
135
(3)
FL, KS, MA
If your agency has used the Osterberg Cell (O-cell) for axial load tests on rock-socketed shafts, please answer the
following:
39.
Were you able to measure both side and tip resistances of the socket independently?
Ye s
Yes:
No:
40.
No
(17) CA, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NC, PR, SC, TX
(1) MN
41.
Additional comments regarding use of O-cell for load testing of rock sockets.
IL: Too expensive.
IA: None.
KY: We have typically failed shafts in side resistance and mobilized enough base movement to extrapolate
the ultimate base resistance.
ME: Did not mobilize ultimate base resistance on either project.
MN: Was also used to develop p-y curve.
NM: Use was for IGM Santa Fe Formation.
TX: For information on recent O-cell testing in rock contact Dr. Vipu and University of Houston.
If your agency has experience with Statnamic testing of rock-socketed drilled shafts please answer the following:
42.
Which of the following performance parameters were determined by the test? (Check all that apply.)
Socket side resistance
(5) FL, AL, IA, NC, SC
Total socket resistance (side and base)
(4) FL, NC, PR, SC
Lateral load-displacement response
(3) FL, NC, SC
43.
44.
Do you have results of load tests on rock-socketed drilled shafts and, if so, are you willing to receive
follow-up contact regarding the possibility of using your results for the synthesis?
Yes, I have previously unpublished load test results
(9) CA, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, NC, SC
136
Indicate which of the following nondestructive testing methods are used on a regular basis by your agency
for rock-socketed shafts.
gamma-gamma
crosshole sonic logging
sonic echo
impulse response
parallel seismic
other
46.
Based on your experience, are there any special considerations or issues related to the use of NDT-NDE,
specifically for rock-socketed shafts? If so, explain.
FL: Results are iffy.
IA: None.
KY: No.
MA: The configuration of the test pipes within the socket (if diameter is smaller than shaft) and
the possible influence of rock material properties on the data results.
NM: Sonic echo not utilized.
NC: Technology is not 100% accurate.
PR: We bought the equipment (CSL) last month.
47.
Do you have case histories of design, construction, or testing of rock-socketed drilled shafts that, in your
opinion, could provide useful information to your colleagues and, if so, are you willing to be contacted by
the author of the synthesis to discuss your case histories further?
Yes, I have useful case histories